Category: Media and Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
I recently received this gem from Tocqueville:
Don Luskin at the blog "The Conspiracy to Keep You Poor and Stupid" (among the best out there) reminds us of this idiotic Paul Krugman (a redundancy) quote (it's hard to pick just one), which would hover near the top of any list of the greatest idiotic quotes of all time (the collection of which is perhaps a worthwhile project and we already know where to look):
"I predict that in the years ahead Enron, not Sept. 11, will come to be seen as the greater turning point in U.S. society."
--Paul Krugman, January 29, 2002
Wow! How does a lame clown like that get to be a lead columnist at a newspaper that claims some authority? Don't you just love the New York Times? If it weren't there to prove that it exists, I would never credit a mere report of its existence.
Thanks, Tocqueville.
Don Luskin at the blog "The Conspiracy to Keep You Poor and Stupid" (among the best out there) reminds us of this idiotic Paul Krugman (a redundancy) quote (it's hard to pick just one), which would hover near the top of any list of the greatest idiotic quotes of all time (the collection of which is perhaps a worthwhile project and we already know where to look):
"I predict that in the years ahead Enron, not Sept. 11, will come to be seen as the greater turning point in U.S. society."
--Paul Krugman, January 29, 2002
Wow! How does a lame clown like that get to be a lead columnist at a newspaper that claims some authority? Don't you just love the New York Times? If it weren't there to prove that it exists, I would never credit a mere report of its existence.
Thanks, Tocqueville.
Liberal candidates, columnists and bloggers all across America are asking two questions this morning:
One officially: why do so many media outlets give so much face time to the vituperative queen of calumny, Ann Coulter?
One unofficially: how can we best publicize and exploit the actions of Ann Coulter to our advantage?
As for the latter question, Elizabeth Edwards, wife of candidate for president, John Edwards, with the aid of Chris Matthews, knocked one out of the park last night on Hardball.
This morning the leftwing blogs are all abuzz with the big political score. Shakespeare's Sister here is typical with this headline: "Elizabeth Edwards Smacks Down Ann Coulter." And this encouragement: "Go get her, Elizabeth." On Coulter: "she really is a soulless beast."
An aside: Over at Shakespeare's Sister, evidently, they really hate hate speech, so much so that there is a warning to friendly commenters not to call Coulter a "tranny."
What Happened on Hardball?
In an extremely cheesy and clumsily orchestrated moment worthy of Jerry Springer, Elizabeth Edwards called in to the show to confront the longtime John Edwards tormentor (view the YouTube here).
Mrs. Edwards, are you there? A pause. Is she there? What will she say? Wow! This is great TV.
"Stop the personal attacks!" Mrs. Edwards says. All these personal attacks are ruining the country.
An aside: is Mrs. Edwards calling for a new standard by which candidates and prominent figures should be judged? If so, she is advocating a revolution. How much ad hominem will need to be stricken from the record in re George Bush? And the next GOP candidate?
Does Ann Coulter have a point?
It is incumbent on candidates of personal tragedy to avoid making said tragedy a central part of their campaign. Elizabeth Edwards is battling a form of incurable cancer. John and Elizabeth Edwards tragically lost a young son.
Are the Edwards's prone to converting their tragedies into political capital? As Coulter pointed out, they are currently using Coulter's comments on their website to raise money. Does this "unplanned" attack, of which Mrs. Edwards claims the candidate knew nothing, play well? I think it does. Is it a publicity stunt? Who knows.
An Aside: The assertion that the Edwards brain trust did not approve this call into Chris Mathews stretches my credulity.
Is Ann Coulter a soulless beast debasing our political dialogue?
Quoting myself, quoting myself, quoting myself (this actually goes back to March of 2006):
"I think [Ms. Coulter] is often uproariously funny and sometimes very insightful, but I also think she can be crude and mean-spirited. Although I give her credit for outwitting Katie Couric (in all seriousness, that was a bravura performance), I think Coulter is something akin to our Maureen Dowd (funny, attractive, possessing a rapier wit but lacking compassion and judgment). Ann Coulter, for me, will forever be the woman who judged John Roberts unfit for the Supreme Court and attempted to reinvent Joe McCarthy as a great American hero."
In a nutshell: Ann Coulter is serially inappropriate and often completely erroneous.
She drew sufficient ire from conservatives following the last run-in with Edwards. Back then I refused to sign the Conservative Bloggers Anti-Ann Coulter Online Petition for reasons you may review here.
Having said that, my guess is that conservatives, many of whom are still waking up to this blow-up (in general, we are not regular Hardball viewers or Ann Coulter watchers), will, in fact, rally around the right to say intemperate things and react against the staged-hit aspects of this particular encounter.
One officially: why do so many media outlets give so much face time to the vituperative queen of calumny, Ann Coulter?
One unofficially: how can we best publicize and exploit the actions of Ann Coulter to our advantage?
As for the latter question, Elizabeth Edwards, wife of candidate for president, John Edwards, with the aid of Chris Matthews, knocked one out of the park last night on Hardball.
This morning the leftwing blogs are all abuzz with the big political score. Shakespeare's Sister here is typical with this headline: "Elizabeth Edwards Smacks Down Ann Coulter." And this encouragement: "Go get her, Elizabeth." On Coulter: "she really is a soulless beast."
An aside: Over at Shakespeare's Sister, evidently, they really hate hate speech, so much so that there is a warning to friendly commenters not to call Coulter a "tranny."
What Happened on Hardball?
In an extremely cheesy and clumsily orchestrated moment worthy of Jerry Springer, Elizabeth Edwards called in to the show to confront the longtime John Edwards tormentor (view the YouTube here).
Mrs. Edwards, are you there? A pause. Is she there? What will she say? Wow! This is great TV.
"Stop the personal attacks!" Mrs. Edwards says. All these personal attacks are ruining the country.
An aside: is Mrs. Edwards calling for a new standard by which candidates and prominent figures should be judged? If so, she is advocating a revolution. How much ad hominem will need to be stricken from the record in re George Bush? And the next GOP candidate?
Does Ann Coulter have a point?
It is incumbent on candidates of personal tragedy to avoid making said tragedy a central part of their campaign. Elizabeth Edwards is battling a form of incurable cancer. John and Elizabeth Edwards tragically lost a young son.
Are the Edwards's prone to converting their tragedies into political capital? As Coulter pointed out, they are currently using Coulter's comments on their website to raise money. Does this "unplanned" attack, of which Mrs. Edwards claims the candidate knew nothing, play well? I think it does. Is it a publicity stunt? Who knows.
An Aside: The assertion that the Edwards brain trust did not approve this call into Chris Mathews stretches my credulity.
Is Ann Coulter a soulless beast debasing our political dialogue?
Quoting myself, quoting myself, quoting myself (this actually goes back to March of 2006):
"I think [Ms. Coulter] is often uproariously funny and sometimes very insightful, but I also think she can be crude and mean-spirited. Although I give her credit for outwitting Katie Couric (in all seriousness, that was a bravura performance), I think Coulter is something akin to our Maureen Dowd (funny, attractive, possessing a rapier wit but lacking compassion and judgment). Ann Coulter, for me, will forever be the woman who judged John Roberts unfit for the Supreme Court and attempted to reinvent Joe McCarthy as a great American hero."
In a nutshell: Ann Coulter is serially inappropriate and often completely erroneous.
She drew sufficient ire from conservatives following the last run-in with Edwards. Back then I refused to sign the Conservative Bloggers Anti-Ann Coulter Online Petition for reasons you may review here.
Having said that, my guess is that conservatives, many of whom are still waking up to this blow-up (in general, we are not regular Hardball viewers or Ann Coulter watchers), will, in fact, rally around the right to say intemperate things and react against the staged-hit aspects of this particular encounter.
Category: Media and Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
"Let not your heart be troubled."
This is an oft-repeated Sean-Hannity-ism, which he offers up to frantic callers predicting the end of the world (or, worse, the end of GOP dominance in Washington).
However, these days it is Sean who is convinced that the sky is falling, and he has a whole host of prominent conservatives ringing the same note.
Why is Sean Hannity so frazzled? The Democrats are attempting to resurrect the "Fairness Doctrine," which would end conservative talk radio as we know it.
Sean, let not your heart be troubled.
I completely agree that the old "Fairness Doctrine" (which was definitely doctrinaire--but not at all fair) stifled conservative opposition. I agree that a return of the erroneously titled "Fairness Doctrine" would mean a mortal blow to free speech in this country. And I agree that the Democrats would re-enact the hated ancien regime in a heart beat--if they could.
But now the good news--they can't. Not now. Not for a long time. Maybe not ever.
Regardless of Trent Lott's intemperate remarks recently, it is nearly impossible to imagine a United States Senate so dominated by Democrats in which legislation to reinstitute the "Fairness Doctrine" could muster anywhere near the sixty votes needed to pass. And, while a more significant worry might be a Clinton-44 FCC re-regulating the airwaves, such an attempt to capture the conservative genie and return it back to the bottle would face a dubious judiciary chocked full of free-speech-supporting conservative appointees.
Most importantly, such a move would incite a massive popular revolt that would dwarf the grassroots rebellion engendered over immigration. There has never been a more democratic apparatus in American political culture than talk radio, and fly-over country loves and appreciates this conduit to the centers of national power. Perhaps it is true that America grows more apathetic everyday--but an enormous portion of the remaining fighters and patriots listen to talk radio. Red-blooded, Red-State America can be mobilized in a single afternoon. I pity the fool who takes them on.
Dianne Feinstein and Hillary Clinton are foolhardy, indeed, for introducing this red meat subject into the arena. On the other hand, we should not look a gift issue in the mouth. If they want to threaten the conservative base with this scenario--let's kick it around.
This is an oft-repeated Sean-Hannity-ism, which he offers up to frantic callers predicting the end of the world (or, worse, the end of GOP dominance in Washington).
However, these days it is Sean who is convinced that the sky is falling, and he has a whole host of prominent conservatives ringing the same note.
Why is Sean Hannity so frazzled? The Democrats are attempting to resurrect the "Fairness Doctrine," which would end conservative talk radio as we know it.
Sean, let not your heart be troubled.
I completely agree that the old "Fairness Doctrine" (which was definitely doctrinaire--but not at all fair) stifled conservative opposition. I agree that a return of the erroneously titled "Fairness Doctrine" would mean a mortal blow to free speech in this country. And I agree that the Democrats would re-enact the hated ancien regime in a heart beat--if they could.
But now the good news--they can't. Not now. Not for a long time. Maybe not ever.
Regardless of Trent Lott's intemperate remarks recently, it is nearly impossible to imagine a United States Senate so dominated by Democrats in which legislation to reinstitute the "Fairness Doctrine" could muster anywhere near the sixty votes needed to pass. And, while a more significant worry might be a Clinton-44 FCC re-regulating the airwaves, such an attempt to capture the conservative genie and return it back to the bottle would face a dubious judiciary chocked full of free-speech-supporting conservative appointees.
Most importantly, such a move would incite a massive popular revolt that would dwarf the grassroots rebellion engendered over immigration. There has never been a more democratic apparatus in American political culture than talk radio, and fly-over country loves and appreciates this conduit to the centers of national power. Perhaps it is true that America grows more apathetic everyday--but an enormous portion of the remaining fighters and patriots listen to talk radio. Red-blooded, Red-State America can be mobilized in a single afternoon. I pity the fool who takes them on.
Dianne Feinstein and Hillary Clinton are foolhardy, indeed, for introducing this red meat subject into the arena. On the other hand, we should not look a gift issue in the mouth. If they want to threaten the conservative base with this scenario--let's kick it around.
Category: Media and Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
A few notes on this story from yesterday, which has been worked hard on the blogosphere and talk radio:
The MSNBC headline: "Journalists dole out cash to politicians (quietly);
News organizations diverge on handling of political activism by staff."
The text of the article here.
My quick reactions:
1. A misleading lead. Although the lead offers one CNN reporter who contributed $500.00 to John Kerry in 2004 and one Forbes editor who gave $2000.00 to Republicans and one more Dow Jones editor who gives money to MoveOn.org, we do not learn that Democratic giving outnumbers Republican 125 to 17 until the last sentence of the third graph. The lead and headline imply a sense of proportionality that the facts do not bear out.
2. Later on we learn that many of the great liberal-leaning news orgs (NYT and CBS, for example) absolutely ban political contributions. An obvious inference (although it is never stated explicitly): even with the liberals trying to tamp down the glaring disparity in political giving, THE DEMS STILL OUTNUMBER THE REPUBS 125 to 17.
3. Why have liberal-leaning news orgs soured on political giving? Not because there is anything wrong with supporting the candidates you really want to win. No. It is a matter of perception.
Quoting the article:
"First came the conservative outcry labeling the mainstream media as carrying a liberal bias. The growth of talk radio and cable slugfests gave voice to that claim. Finally, it became easier for the blogging public to look up the donors."
Why? They've been caught.
And this sublimely revealing response from the Times (within the story):
"Given the ease of Internet access to public records of campaign contributors, any political giving by a Times staff member would carry a great risk of feeding a false impression that the paper is taking sides."
The Times doesn't want to feed the false impression that a huge majority of their objective reporters are partisans. Priceless.
4. PR over substance. The simple answer for the knotty public relations problem confronting left-leaning news orgs seems to be concealing their biases by outlawing personal contributions to candidates. However, with all due respect to the Orwellian logic of the New York Times, this self-imposed ban will in no way reduce the prevalence of liberal reporters spinning the facts through the prism of their core beliefs and political agendas; it will merely give us one less tool with which to hold them up to critical evaluation.
5. After a decade of close scrutiny, I am surprised the liberal-leaning media did not shut down this embarrassing window into their inner workings long ago. I guess they just could not help themselves.
Note: Thanks to Tocqueville for pointing me to this story early on yesterday morning. My delay in weighing-in is my own fault. And, frankly, I have not followed all the blogging and commentary on this, but I can imagine that many observers have had similar reactions.
Previous Bosque Boys conversations concerning politics and media:
What Liberal Bias? (here)
and
The Genius and Humor of Fair and Balanced (I'll opine, you decide) (here).
The MSNBC headline: "Journalists dole out cash to politicians (quietly);
News organizations diverge on handling of political activism by staff."
The text of the article here.
My quick reactions:
1. A misleading lead. Although the lead offers one CNN reporter who contributed $500.00 to John Kerry in 2004 and one Forbes editor who gave $2000.00 to Republicans and one more Dow Jones editor who gives money to MoveOn.org, we do not learn that Democratic giving outnumbers Republican 125 to 17 until the last sentence of the third graph. The lead and headline imply a sense of proportionality that the facts do not bear out.
2. Later on we learn that many of the great liberal-leaning news orgs (NYT and CBS, for example) absolutely ban political contributions. An obvious inference (although it is never stated explicitly): even with the liberals trying to tamp down the glaring disparity in political giving, THE DEMS STILL OUTNUMBER THE REPUBS 125 to 17.
3. Why have liberal-leaning news orgs soured on political giving? Not because there is anything wrong with supporting the candidates you really want to win. No. It is a matter of perception.
Quoting the article:
"First came the conservative outcry labeling the mainstream media as carrying a liberal bias. The growth of talk radio and cable slugfests gave voice to that claim. Finally, it became easier for the blogging public to look up the donors."
Why? They've been caught.
And this sublimely revealing response from the Times (within the story):
"Given the ease of Internet access to public records of campaign contributors, any political giving by a Times staff member would carry a great risk of feeding a false impression that the paper is taking sides."
The Times doesn't want to feed the false impression that a huge majority of their objective reporters are partisans. Priceless.
4. PR over substance. The simple answer for the knotty public relations problem confronting left-leaning news orgs seems to be concealing their biases by outlawing personal contributions to candidates. However, with all due respect to the Orwellian logic of the New York Times, this self-imposed ban will in no way reduce the prevalence of liberal reporters spinning the facts through the prism of their core beliefs and political agendas; it will merely give us one less tool with which to hold them up to critical evaluation.
5. After a decade of close scrutiny, I am surprised the liberal-leaning media did not shut down this embarrassing window into their inner workings long ago. I guess they just could not help themselves.
Note: Thanks to Tocqueville for pointing me to this story early on yesterday morning. My delay in weighing-in is my own fault. And, frankly, I have not followed all the blogging and commentary on this, but I can imagine that many observers have had similar reactions.
Previous Bosque Boys conversations concerning politics and media:
What Liberal Bias? (here)
and
The Genius and Humor of Fair and Balanced (I'll opine, you decide) (here).
OUTRAGE!!!
From Michael Savage.com (website here):
"C-SPAN Blacklists Savage's Speech!"
What?
Michael Savage claims that C-SPAN censored him when they opted not to show his acceptance speech at a Talkers magazine award banquet, where he was honored with the "Freedom of Speech Award," which he describes as "the paramount award of the event."
Comparing the snub to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's closing down TV stations, Savage intimated that C-SPAN and Brian Lamb (CEO), along with his big media conspirators, are out to silence him.
He has suggested that his listeners write, call and email C-SPAN to voice their indignation with this brand of liberal McCarthyism. And Savage's fans have responded, inundating C-SPAN with abusive protests, some of which Brian Lamb featured on Washington Journal this morning (link here --6-15-07).
Savage is also trying to sell a DVD of the speech for $20.00 on his website. "See the video too hot for left-wing C-SPAN!" hawks one of his links. More information about the incident is promised on another link, although you must wade through offers to buy a "liberalism is a mental disorder" coffee mug and a "Savage Nation" ball cap before you arrive at the less-than-satisfying explanation.
Who is Michael Savage?
According to Talkers, Savage has over eight million listeners per week and is in third place overall behind Rush and Sean Hannity (view complete list from the magazine here).
From his own site:
"[Michael Savage is] an explosive conservative radio talk show host, who continues to dominate the airwaves with his brash commentary and unapologetic solutions. The 10 million listeners who tune into Savage each week can't be wrong!" (the full self-congratulatory, self-promoting bio here).
Is anyone actually buying this story?
The so-called Free Republic weighs in (link here):
"C-SPAN, which claims to be nonpartisan and nonideological, was there and carried most of the speeches. But for some reason, it blacklisted Savage's speech accepting the award.
"Why would a nonideological network do this? More liberal media bias, obviously. C-SPAN has now willingly made itself part of the liberal effort to suppress freedom of speech in this country."
Once again: WHAT!?!
The truth is, of course, Brian Lamb and C-SPAN have provided the most unrestricted forum for conservative intellectualism in the brief history of electronic media. All the while, they have provided a similar forum for liberal ideas, but with much less impact, as liberal thought already had numerous esteemed channels to disseminate messages.
I think and write about media and politics a lot. How do you categorize C-SPAN? Liberal? Alternative? Public? None of those really work. C-SPAN exists in a league unto itself. C-SPAN attempts to show all points of view without editorial comment. C-SPAN is fundamentally conservative in the ultimate Jeffersonian libertarian sense ("give the people light and they will find the way"), but the relatively unwatched mother lode of political information remains the only completely pure source of unvarnished news.
Brian Lamb is a national treasure, and his brainchild, C-SPAN, is the most positive development in American political culture during the last half-century.
What Actually Happened:
Brian's explanation this morning: Savage was not there. He sent a video acceptance speech to the Talkers banquet. C-SPAN elected not to show the video, but C-SPAN offered to come and tape a live speech or cover his radio show for airing at some future date.
Free Republic confirms this account of the events:
Michael Savage, Freedom Of Speech Award: NO SHOW (Savage Skips Own Award Ceremony) (link here):
Quoting a Free Republic post:
Again underscoring his ultra- reclusive nature, the "Savage Nation" host unexpectedly failed to appear at a ceremony where he was to pick up an industry honor.
Selected to receive this year's Freedom Of Speech Award at the New Media Seminar held over the weekend in New York City, Savage instead substituted a hastily- made YouTube- style home video.
Who is Michael Savage really?
I am tempted to hoist Savage on a few of his favorite petards: he is a bum; he's garbage. Sorry. Could not resist the temptation.
Actually, Savage is a person of great intelligence and talent. His comedic timing borders on genius. He is truly an independent voice (wild card is probably more accurate) in the conservative movement (broadly construed), and he is a brilliant communicator.
Unfortunately, he is a sloppy thinker and a boorish bully.
If you don't have enough sense to figure out that C-SPAN is not the enemy, you are not worthy of a single listener. In the past, I have listened to him casually for a chuckle (and sometimes even a belly laugh)--although never when my young sons are in the car with me.
An aside: Fodder for a future post. Should we judge talk radio hosts by how well they model behavior for my boys. That is, would we want our children interacting and debating like the person to whom we are listening on the radio? If the answer is no, perhaps we find another station.
Anyhow, no more Michael Savage on my dial. I am giving up this guilty pleasure.
Brian Lamb or Michael Savage?
Not a tough decision. Michael Savage is dead to me.
From Michael Savage.com (website here):
"C-SPAN Blacklists Savage's Speech!"
What?
Michael Savage claims that C-SPAN censored him when they opted not to show his acceptance speech at a Talkers magazine award banquet, where he was honored with the "Freedom of Speech Award," which he describes as "the paramount award of the event."
Comparing the snub to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's closing down TV stations, Savage intimated that C-SPAN and Brian Lamb (CEO), along with his big media conspirators, are out to silence him.
He has suggested that his listeners write, call and email C-SPAN to voice their indignation with this brand of liberal McCarthyism. And Savage's fans have responded, inundating C-SPAN with abusive protests, some of which Brian Lamb featured on Washington Journal this morning (link here --6-15-07).
Savage is also trying to sell a DVD of the speech for $20.00 on his website. "See the video too hot for left-wing C-SPAN!" hawks one of his links. More information about the incident is promised on another link, although you must wade through offers to buy a "liberalism is a mental disorder" coffee mug and a "Savage Nation" ball cap before you arrive at the less-than-satisfying explanation.
Who is Michael Savage?
According to Talkers, Savage has over eight million listeners per week and is in third place overall behind Rush and Sean Hannity (view complete list from the magazine here).
From his own site:
"[Michael Savage is] an explosive conservative radio talk show host, who continues to dominate the airwaves with his brash commentary and unapologetic solutions. The 10 million listeners who tune into Savage each week can't be wrong!" (the full self-congratulatory, self-promoting bio here).
Is anyone actually buying this story?
The so-called Free Republic weighs in (link here):
"C-SPAN, which claims to be nonpartisan and nonideological, was there and carried most of the speeches. But for some reason, it blacklisted Savage's speech accepting the award.
"Why would a nonideological network do this? More liberal media bias, obviously. C-SPAN has now willingly made itself part of the liberal effort to suppress freedom of speech in this country."
Once again: WHAT!?!
The truth is, of course, Brian Lamb and C-SPAN have provided the most unrestricted forum for conservative intellectualism in the brief history of electronic media. All the while, they have provided a similar forum for liberal ideas, but with much less impact, as liberal thought already had numerous esteemed channels to disseminate messages.
I think and write about media and politics a lot. How do you categorize C-SPAN? Liberal? Alternative? Public? None of those really work. C-SPAN exists in a league unto itself. C-SPAN attempts to show all points of view without editorial comment. C-SPAN is fundamentally conservative in the ultimate Jeffersonian libertarian sense ("give the people light and they will find the way"), but the relatively unwatched mother lode of political information remains the only completely pure source of unvarnished news.
Brian Lamb is a national treasure, and his brainchild, C-SPAN, is the most positive development in American political culture during the last half-century.
What Actually Happened:
Brian's explanation this morning: Savage was not there. He sent a video acceptance speech to the Talkers banquet. C-SPAN elected not to show the video, but C-SPAN offered to come and tape a live speech or cover his radio show for airing at some future date.
Free Republic confirms this account of the events:
Michael Savage, Freedom Of Speech Award: NO SHOW (Savage Skips Own Award Ceremony) (link here):
Quoting a Free Republic post:
Again underscoring his ultra- reclusive nature, the "Savage Nation" host unexpectedly failed to appear at a ceremony where he was to pick up an industry honor.
Selected to receive this year's Freedom Of Speech Award at the New Media Seminar held over the weekend in New York City, Savage instead substituted a hastily- made YouTube- style home video.
Who is Michael Savage really?
I am tempted to hoist Savage on a few of his favorite petards: he is a bum; he's garbage. Sorry. Could not resist the temptation.
Actually, Savage is a person of great intelligence and talent. His comedic timing borders on genius. He is truly an independent voice (wild card is probably more accurate) in the conservative movement (broadly construed), and he is a brilliant communicator.
Unfortunately, he is a sloppy thinker and a boorish bully.
If you don't have enough sense to figure out that C-SPAN is not the enemy, you are not worthy of a single listener. In the past, I have listened to him casually for a chuckle (and sometimes even a belly laugh)--although never when my young sons are in the car with me.
An aside: Fodder for a future post. Should we judge talk radio hosts by how well they model behavior for my boys. That is, would we want our children interacting and debating like the person to whom we are listening on the radio? If the answer is no, perhaps we find another station.
Anyhow, no more Michael Savage on my dial. I am giving up this guilty pleasure.
Brian Lamb or Michael Savage?
Not a tough decision. Michael Savage is dead to me.
Category: Media and Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
TEXARKANA, TX.
Explanatory Note: I am on the road and working from a laptop. Fat fingers. Small keyboad. Short sentences.
Plenty of stories on the departure of Rosie. Good Riddance.
Big Picture: Virtually no meaningful impact on the View or outside the View. Notwithstanding, it will be nice to have Rosie off her bully platform for a few days.
One telling point: I contine to see stories like this one from ABC News (here), which merely alludes to a statement that Rosie made, "when O'Donnell commented on the number of Iraqi deaths and was accused of insinuating U.S. troops are the real terrorists in Iraq -- a claim she vehemently denies."
Obviously, ABC News has a vested interest in this--but come on.
For the record, here is the question Rosie asked and refuses to answer:
"I just want to say something. 655,000 Iraqi civilians are dead. Who are the terrorists?"
Deal with it.
Explanatory Note: I am on the road and working from a laptop. Fat fingers. Small keyboad. Short sentences.
Plenty of stories on the departure of Rosie. Good Riddance.
Big Picture: Virtually no meaningful impact on the View or outside the View. Notwithstanding, it will be nice to have Rosie off her bully platform for a few days.
One telling point: I contine to see stories like this one from ABC News (here), which merely alludes to a statement that Rosie made, "when O'Donnell commented on the number of Iraqi deaths and was accused of insinuating U.S. troops are the real terrorists in Iraq -- a claim she vehemently denies."
Obviously, ABC News has a vested interest in this--but come on.
For the record, here is the question Rosie asked and refuses to answer:
"I just want to say something. 655,000 Iraqi civilians are dead. Who are the terrorists?"
Deal with it.
Category: Media and Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Today Good Morning America weatherman, Sam Champion, is on the road with Sheryl Crow's “Stop Global Warming College Tour.”
The tour is currently in Dallas set to play at SMU (hosting the event to do penance for winning the Bush library perhaps).
The big weather story this morning was the spring freeze throughout the South over the weekend. In fact, Dallas was the scene of snow flurries on Saturday.
No matter, in the first hour (that is all I saw), not once did Sam feel compelled to make any reference to the incongruity.
So what?
This is not one of those pieces that lampoons the concern over global warming by pointing out the latest conference cancelled due to a blizzard (although those stories always give me a chuckle).
For the record: I don't discount the myriad scientists who tell us to be concerned with the verifiable changes in climate on our planet. I too worry about finding water and other resources for a world population at 6-billion-plus and rising.
My beef is with the mainstream media: Can you imagine the hoots those overlapping events might have elicited on the GMA set, if they were not so heavily invested in this cause.
That is, it is frightening the discipline MSM actors have mustered in support of this movement?
The tour is currently in Dallas set to play at SMU (hosting the event to do penance for winning the Bush library perhaps).
The big weather story this morning was the spring freeze throughout the South over the weekend. In fact, Dallas was the scene of snow flurries on Saturday.
No matter, in the first hour (that is all I saw), not once did Sam feel compelled to make any reference to the incongruity.
So what?
This is not one of those pieces that lampoons the concern over global warming by pointing out the latest conference cancelled due to a blizzard (although those stories always give me a chuckle).
For the record: I don't discount the myriad scientists who tell us to be concerned with the verifiable changes in climate on our planet. I too worry about finding water and other resources for a world population at 6-billion-plus and rising.
My beef is with the mainstream media: Can you imagine the hoots those overlapping events might have elicited on the GMA set, if they were not so heavily invested in this cause.
That is, it is frightening the discipline MSM actors have mustered in support of this movement?
Category: Media and Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
The good news: Joe Klein, who spent a career posing as an "objective" journalist and Washington inside-the-Beltway wise man, is finally unmasked . Fortunately, Joe Klein's by-line now appears under the label of "commentary." He is off the streets and safely contained on the op-ed pages of TIME magazine.
The bad news: There are still a host of reporters out there covering national government who are not out of the closet.
From the most recent issue of TIME, Joe Klein's assault on the President:
The Headline: "An Administration's Epic Collapse: In the face of three scandals. Bush offers only more relentless partisanship" (full article here).
Klein: A Pew poll had it about right: a substantial majority of the public remains happy the Democrats won in 2006, but neither Nancy Pelosi nor Harry Reid has dominated the public consciousness as Newt Gingrich did when the Republicans came to power in 1995.
That is probably because Nancy Pelosi is so humble and retiring and does not go looking for ways to place her name on the top of the page--unlike that dastardly megalomaniac, Newt Gingrich. No way is it because the media treatment of Pelosi and Gingrich are as different as lightning and a lightning bug. Hold on, Joe Klein has a better answer:
Klein: There is a reason for that. A much bigger story is unfolding: the epic collapse of the Bush Administration.
Please. Go on.
Klein: The three big Bush stories of 2007...precisely illuminate the three qualities that make this Administration one of the worst in American history: arrogance (the surge), incompetence (Walter Reed) and cynicism (the U.S. Attorneys).
One of the worst in American history? That is a big claim. Thanks, though, for a recap of the DNC talking points. Anything else?
Klein: Iraq comes first, as always. From the start, it has been obvious that personal motives have skewed the President's judgment about the war. Saddam tried to kill his dad...
Is there anything more hackneyed and more facile than this line of argument? Perhaps next week Klein and Rosie O'Donnell can explain the real story behind the 9-11 attacks.
The bad news: There are still a host of reporters out there covering national government who are not out of the closet.
From the most recent issue of TIME, Joe Klein's assault on the President:
The Headline: "An Administration's Epic Collapse: In the face of three scandals. Bush offers only more relentless partisanship" (full article here).
Klein: A Pew poll had it about right: a substantial majority of the public remains happy the Democrats won in 2006, but neither Nancy Pelosi nor Harry Reid has dominated the public consciousness as Newt Gingrich did when the Republicans came to power in 1995.
That is probably because Nancy Pelosi is so humble and retiring and does not go looking for ways to place her name on the top of the page--unlike that dastardly megalomaniac, Newt Gingrich. No way is it because the media treatment of Pelosi and Gingrich are as different as lightning and a lightning bug. Hold on, Joe Klein has a better answer:
Klein: There is a reason for that. A much bigger story is unfolding: the epic collapse of the Bush Administration.
Please. Go on.
Klein: The three big Bush stories of 2007...precisely illuminate the three qualities that make this Administration one of the worst in American history: arrogance (the surge), incompetence (Walter Reed) and cynicism (the U.S. Attorneys).
One of the worst in American history? That is a big claim. Thanks, though, for a recap of the DNC talking points. Anything else?
Klein: Iraq comes first, as always. From the start, it has been obvious that personal motives have skewed the President's judgment about the war. Saddam tried to kill his dad...
Is there anything more hackneyed and more facile than this line of argument? Perhaps next week Klein and Rosie O'Donnell can explain the real story behind the 9-11 attacks.
Category: Media and Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Important Admission: I am a big fan and supporter of NPR. I enjoy their artistry. I acknowledge their left-leaning bias, and that often colors their coverage of Republicans and conservatives in unflattering and unfriendly ways. Nevertheless, I appreciate the skill and erudition that permeates every aspect of their operation.
Today, however, Morning Edition's David Greene orchestrated a gratuitously misleading characterization of the President's press conference yesterday that deserves notice.
In the introduction to the story, NPR anchor Renee Montagne set-up Greene calling the session "a little unusual." It was a Rose Garden press conference, which is not commonplace, but that is not what she meant. Greene quickly asserted that yesterday there were "no chairs or mikes" at the press conference. Perhaps the "President wasn't in the mood for something so formal," Greene wondered. Reporters "stood and tried to make themselves heard," he reported and then implied that no one (not even the President) could hear the questions. Listening to Greene, I could not help but think of the old Reagan sound bites with the helicopter roaring and Reagan cupping his ear and looking befuddled and Nancy whispering: "just tell them we are working on it."
But that was all wrong. I happened to catch a replay of the conference early this morning on C-SPAN, and it was nothing like that. My one observation about the atmospherics was that the President must have been facing the sun, for he seemed to be squinting a lot. But the audio was fine. I did not miss any questions. Maybe C-SPAN has a better audio set-up than NPR--but David Greene said there were no "mikes," which, of course, was a ridiculous statement.
Later in his report, Greene featured a sound bite (which was exquisitely audible) of the question that queried the President about the "morality of homosexuality." Green added that the reporter "was lucky enough to be near a microphone" (which supposedly were nonexistent).
Listen to the full story here.
Am I being too fastidious? Maybe. Of course, people in the news business who make a living pointing out errors ought to get their facts right. Why emphasize this erroneous angle (no microphones) or comment on reporters standing in the Rose Garden, if not to create an impression that implicitly reinforces a storyline.
Anyhow, here is the C-SPAN archive (decide for yourself): Bush Administration Page here.
And the transcript from the White House here.
Also, I witnessed a remarkable edition of C-SPAN's Washington Journal this morning, which featured Ronald Griffin, a private citizen and father of a fallen American soldier. Griffen recently returned from a personal trip to Iraq. Much more on this in the hours or days to come. I encourage you to view it now for yourself here.
Today, however, Morning Edition's David Greene orchestrated a gratuitously misleading characterization of the President's press conference yesterday that deserves notice.
In the introduction to the story, NPR anchor Renee Montagne set-up Greene calling the session "a little unusual." It was a Rose Garden press conference, which is not commonplace, but that is not what she meant. Greene quickly asserted that yesterday there were "no chairs or mikes" at the press conference. Perhaps the "President wasn't in the mood for something so formal," Greene wondered. Reporters "stood and tried to make themselves heard," he reported and then implied that no one (not even the President) could hear the questions. Listening to Greene, I could not help but think of the old Reagan sound bites with the helicopter roaring and Reagan cupping his ear and looking befuddled and Nancy whispering: "just tell them we are working on it."
But that was all wrong. I happened to catch a replay of the conference early this morning on C-SPAN, and it was nothing like that. My one observation about the atmospherics was that the President must have been facing the sun, for he seemed to be squinting a lot. But the audio was fine. I did not miss any questions. Maybe C-SPAN has a better audio set-up than NPR--but David Greene said there were no "mikes," which, of course, was a ridiculous statement.
Later in his report, Greene featured a sound bite (which was exquisitely audible) of the question that queried the President about the "morality of homosexuality." Green added that the reporter "was lucky enough to be near a microphone" (which supposedly were nonexistent).
Listen to the full story here.
Am I being too fastidious? Maybe. Of course, people in the news business who make a living pointing out errors ought to get their facts right. Why emphasize this erroneous angle (no microphones) or comment on reporters standing in the Rose Garden, if not to create an impression that implicitly reinforces a storyline.
Anyhow, here is the C-SPAN archive (decide for yourself): Bush Administration Page here.
And the transcript from the White House here.
Also, I witnessed a remarkable edition of C-SPAN's Washington Journal this morning, which featured Ronald Griffin, a private citizen and father of a fallen American soldier. Griffen recently returned from a personal trip to Iraq. Much more on this in the hours or days to come. I encourage you to view it now for yourself here.
Category: Media and Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
Powerline has this post today linking to Gabriel Shoenfeld's review of Henry Kissinger's third-volume of memoirs. Important reading for many reasons.
This portion of the review is worth pondering:
In the beginning, middle, and end of this episode, Kissinger shows to telling effect, the barbaric nature of the Communist Khmer Rouge was painted over in soothing tones by much of the American press. The New York Times was the most flagrant offender. In one dispatch, its correspondent Sydney Schanberg described a ranking Khmer Rouge leader as a "French-educated intellectual" who wanted nothing more than "to fight aginst feudal privileges and social inequities." A bloodbath was unlikely, Schanberg reported: "since all are Cambodians, an accomodation will be found." As the last Americans were withdrawn, another upbeat article by Schanberg appeared under the headline, "Indochina Without Americans: For Most, a Better Life." In short order, the Khmer Rouge proceeded to march nearly two million of their fellow Cambodians to their deaths in the killing fields. Also, in short order, Schanberg went on to greater glory and a Pulitzer prize.*
*Although tucking them away in a footnote, Kissinger also provides the later and second thoughts of the journalist William Shawcross, whose highly influential book, Sideshow: Kissinger, Nixon, and the Destruction of Cambodia, had placed the blame for the Cambodian tragedy squarely on the United States. Wrote a repentant Shawcross in 1994: "[T]hose of us who opposed the American war in Indochina should be extremely humble in the face of the appalling aftermath: a form of genocide in Cambodia and horrific tyranny in both Vietnam and Laos. Looking back on my own coverage for the [London] Sunday Times of the South Vietnamese war effort of 1970-75, I think I concentrated too easily on the corruption and incompetence of the South Vietnamese and their American allies, was too ignorant of the inhuman Hanoi regime, and far too willing to believe that a victory by the Communists would provide a better future."
Media writers are not necessarily smarter or more informed than their readers. In their comments and in their slanting of the news, media writers can be horribly mistaken, with tragic results. Keep that in mind when reading the New York Times on Iraq.
This portion of the review is worth pondering:
In the beginning, middle, and end of this episode, Kissinger shows to telling effect, the barbaric nature of the Communist Khmer Rouge was painted over in soothing tones by much of the American press. The New York Times was the most flagrant offender. In one dispatch, its correspondent Sydney Schanberg described a ranking Khmer Rouge leader as a "French-educated intellectual" who wanted nothing more than "to fight aginst feudal privileges and social inequities." A bloodbath was unlikely, Schanberg reported: "since all are Cambodians, an accomodation will be found." As the last Americans were withdrawn, another upbeat article by Schanberg appeared under the headline, "Indochina Without Americans: For Most, a Better Life." In short order, the Khmer Rouge proceeded to march nearly two million of their fellow Cambodians to their deaths in the killing fields. Also, in short order, Schanberg went on to greater glory and a Pulitzer prize.*
*Although tucking them away in a footnote, Kissinger also provides the later and second thoughts of the journalist William Shawcross, whose highly influential book, Sideshow: Kissinger, Nixon, and the Destruction of Cambodia, had placed the blame for the Cambodian tragedy squarely on the United States. Wrote a repentant Shawcross in 1994: "[T]hose of us who opposed the American war in Indochina should be extremely humble in the face of the appalling aftermath: a form of genocide in Cambodia and horrific tyranny in both Vietnam and Laos. Looking back on my own coverage for the [London] Sunday Times of the South Vietnamese war effort of 1970-75, I think I concentrated too easily on the corruption and incompetence of the South Vietnamese and their American allies, was too ignorant of the inhuman Hanoi regime, and far too willing to believe that a victory by the Communists would provide a better future."
Media writers are not necessarily smarter or more informed than their readers. In their comments and in their slanting of the news, media writers can be horribly mistaken, with tragic results. Keep that in mind when reading the New York Times on Iraq.
