David Shuster on MSNBC's 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue regularly has a segment on hypocrisy, typically devoted to highlighting anything unflattering about Republicans. (Hey, who ever said cable news was real journalism?). Today he points out that Republicans like Eric Cantor originally attacked the stimulus bill for not adequately addressing the housing downturn; now after the latest (how many more billion?) housing legislation, he's declared that we can't afford it, and opposes it. "That's hypocrisy!" Shuster exclaims, the satisfying tagline to the ever-entertaining Hypocrisy Watch on 1600.
If anyone cares, it's not hypocrisy, by any definition I'm familiar with. It's perhaps opportunism, and certainly it's prima facie inconsistent, but if it's hypocrisy, Cantor needs not just to change his mind, but to profess something publically while doing something at odds with his words privately. Espousing, at different times, two public views that taken together seem inconsistent is not hypocrisy. But then, real hypocrisy is revealed typically only in scandals, and for programs that air five days a week, who's got the time to wait for those?
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
The Haters
Rush Limbaugh says that he hopes President Obama will fail. Is he serious? Wow, this surprised me. His "reasoning" seems to be that, if Obama succeeds, he will have succeeded only in ushering in socialist solutions to our current economic woes. Ergo, he must fail.
What's interesting here is that Limbaugh isn't saying that socialist policies will fail (put aside, for now, what constitutes "socialist"), but rather that if socialist policy succeeds, this is itself a failure for us. This, of course, is a complete tangle. If an economic remedy worked -- if it succeeded -- by any measure of success I'm aware of, the country would be (somewhat definitionally) better off. Because the policy worked! And so, Limbaugh is apparently at war with "socialistic policies" regardless of outcome. Now that's an ideologue. Better that we plant both feet in traditional capitalism come hell or high water than try non-capitalist policies, because God forbid they might work (and then what?).
Of course I'm not a "socialist"; this not what I'm getting at. It's just so over the top to want a President to fail, just to preserve some view of the world. This is not my view of America or politics generally.
On the other side of things, right-of-center thinkers especially, please take time to watch Countdown with Keith Olbermann and immediately after The Rachel Maddow Show. They're so Rush Limbaugh. I get this perverse sense of superiority watching people with such a simple rubric, their whole raison d'etre predicated on the proposition that "the other side" is evil. It's really good viewing.
Mainly, lately, it's the simple idea with these shows that "Bush is evil". That's it. I've been watching. That's pretty much it. It's an almost religious calling to continually open wounds and fester them and spew forth venom at George Bush. Bush is an idiot, he should be accused of war crimes, he ruined the country, and on and on. I keep hoping, but there seems no possibility of acknowledging anything positive whatsoever about the Bush years. Nothing. There's just this Limbaugh-like failure to accept or to even grasp the context of the former Administration, and indeed the precarious place that we all occupied in the wake of September 11.
Nothing but hatred... that's easy enough. What's harder is to try to figure out what happened, why particular decisions were made, what effects they had (positive and negative), and what can and should be done better next time. A sober, thoughtful analysis. But you won't get this from Olbermann or Maddow.
In the same vein, Limbaugh ought to attempt a similar treatment of Obama's current plans. But he won't. And so you won't get it from him either. And on and on the haters go.
What's interesting here is that Limbaugh isn't saying that socialist policies will fail (put aside, for now, what constitutes "socialist"), but rather that if socialist policy succeeds, this is itself a failure for us. This, of course, is a complete tangle. If an economic remedy worked -- if it succeeded -- by any measure of success I'm aware of, the country would be (somewhat definitionally) better off. Because the policy worked! And so, Limbaugh is apparently at war with "socialistic policies" regardless of outcome. Now that's an ideologue. Better that we plant both feet in traditional capitalism come hell or high water than try non-capitalist policies, because God forbid they might work (and then what?).
Of course I'm not a "socialist"; this not what I'm getting at. It's just so over the top to want a President to fail, just to preserve some view of the world. This is not my view of America or politics generally.
On the other side of things, right-of-center thinkers especially, please take time to watch Countdown with Keith Olbermann and immediately after The Rachel Maddow Show. They're so Rush Limbaugh. I get this perverse sense of superiority watching people with such a simple rubric, their whole raison d'etre predicated on the proposition that "the other side" is evil. It's really good viewing.
Mainly, lately, it's the simple idea with these shows that "Bush is evil". That's it. I've been watching. That's pretty much it. It's an almost religious calling to continually open wounds and fester them and spew forth venom at George Bush. Bush is an idiot, he should be accused of war crimes, he ruined the country, and on and on. I keep hoping, but there seems no possibility of acknowledging anything positive whatsoever about the Bush years. Nothing. There's just this Limbaugh-like failure to accept or to even grasp the context of the former Administration, and indeed the precarious place that we all occupied in the wake of September 11.
Nothing but hatred... that's easy enough. What's harder is to try to figure out what happened, why particular decisions were made, what effects they had (positive and negative), and what can and should be done better next time. A sober, thoughtful analysis. But you won't get this from Olbermann or Maddow.
In the same vein, Limbaugh ought to attempt a similar treatment of Obama's current plans. But he won't. And so you won't get it from him either. And on and on the haters go.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Keith Olbermann's Really Special Comment
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Perhaps it's not NYT's Paul Krugman, as I suggested here, but rather media personality Keith Olbermann, who is most energetically expressing the anger from the wider-circulated Left about the Bush Administration's policies regarding fighting terrorism after September 11. His moral indignation cannot best be captured with just words, I don't think, and so (another first on this blog), here's the video.
These are Mr. Olbermann's concluding remarks, by the way, on Martin Luther King day and on the eve of the inauguration of President-Elect Obama. A little ironic, maybe, given that MLK did not strike a particularly litigious tone, and that Mr. Obama seems intent on moving forward and healing wounds -- bridging gaps -- between the Right and Left with his upcoming Presidency. If President-Elect Obama is watching Keith Olbermann's program at all, he's certainly getting confirmation from cable news media that the road ahead will be long, indeed.
(Incidentally, I'm sure there's a better way to embed the video, but I couldn't find it on blogspot from my brief perusal of the options. I'll look into it. Also, if time is an issue with viewing, the last 2 - 2.5 minutes are I think of most value, although the clip in toto is quite worth it as well.)
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
The Donald
Donald Trump gets interviewed, pretty frequently, by cable news for sound bites on what's happening with the economy, business, banking, this kind of thing. You know, The Donald topics. Well I really do love these Donald moments. This is a guy who once ran for President, promoting himself to the country with memorabilia like "I've had a great time here" (what the heck does that mean? Is this what-happens-in-Vegas campaigning? Sounds like a Chicago politician, with perhaps less criminality and more just standard issue louche).
So he's back on cable news now, giving his wisdom on the auto bailout. The problem with The Donald is that he's so opulently wealthy, so New York Cosmo privileged, that he can't manage the relevant distinctions for us plebian viewers. When asked if he'd buy an American car, he responds that he's got several. In fact, he says, he just had one of his workers buy a Dodge Ram truck for him. He likes Cadillacs, too. Buick makes a good car, he assures us.
The interviewer, Greta Van Suster-whatever, asks if he buys foreign as well, and she should have known better, because (say it with me) of course he does! He buys them all. See, it's just about Donald Trump being really rich. But strangely I still like the guy. He embodies that rarified world of gaudy New York real estate tycoons. He's (weirdly) innocently just that. He tells us with a straight face that he helps the struggling economy by buying expensive things (he's got, strictly speaking, something of a point here.) No time for philanthropic B.S., The Donald's making deals. He just scored another gold statue for one of his homes. Beautiful. Great time to buy em'.
Final thought, The Donald was on I think MSNBC a while back, and was asked about buying real estate. I kid you not, he's on point with a story about how he just picked up a piece of real estate for pennies on the dollar. 112 million is all. It's a great time to buy, he concludes (as if we should all rush out and grab up some resorts in Miami for cheap). The interviewer is slightly exasperated at this point and reminds Mr. Trump that many Americans are struggling to buy a first home, or pay the mortage on an existing. Unfazed. The deals are out there, he says. And they are. If you're The Donald.
So he's back on cable news now, giving his wisdom on the auto bailout. The problem with The Donald is that he's so opulently wealthy, so New York Cosmo privileged, that he can't manage the relevant distinctions for us plebian viewers. When asked if he'd buy an American car, he responds that he's got several. In fact, he says, he just had one of his workers buy a Dodge Ram truck for him. He likes Cadillacs, too. Buick makes a good car, he assures us.
The interviewer, Greta Van Suster-whatever, asks if he buys foreign as well, and she should have known better, because (say it with me) of course he does! He buys them all. See, it's just about Donald Trump being really rich. But strangely I still like the guy. He embodies that rarified world of gaudy New York real estate tycoons. He's (weirdly) innocently just that. He tells us with a straight face that he helps the struggling economy by buying expensive things (he's got, strictly speaking, something of a point here.) No time for philanthropic B.S., The Donald's making deals. He just scored another gold statue for one of his homes. Beautiful. Great time to buy em'.
Final thought, The Donald was on I think MSNBC a while back, and was asked about buying real estate. I kid you not, he's on point with a story about how he just picked up a piece of real estate for pennies on the dollar. 112 million is all. It's a great time to buy, he concludes (as if we should all rush out and grab up some resorts in Miami for cheap). The interviewer is slightly exasperated at this point and reminds Mr. Trump that many Americans are struggling to buy a first home, or pay the mortage on an existing. Unfazed. The deals are out there, he says. And they are. If you're The Donald.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
The Dry Wit of the Brit
Chistopher Hitchens, you gotta love this guy. He's on Hardball last night with Salon's Joan Walsh debating the Hilary Clinton pick, a perfect platform to launch his everything-but-the kitchen-sink diatribes against the Clintons (he thinks very little of the Clintons, I'm now aware). Ms. Walsh, who apparently was there as a cheerleader for Clinton (needed only the pom poms), and now has a look on her face like Mr. Hitchens is talking about her sister (the camera keeps panning over to her, what high drama), has just about enough and, without engaging the substance of his charges, lobs a Labowski at him: "that's just your opinion Christopher." To which he retorts "...yes, how clever, and look who's saying it? Would you rather I give your opinion?" Walsh just kind of harumphs, but Mathews couldn't resist a chuckle. Neither could I.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Homicide Bombing (or, could you repeat that?)
I really wish Fox News would stop using "homicide bomber" to describe suicide bombings. For one, it's redundant. If we know that a bomber kills 12 in Iraq, we already know that there was a homicide. Just say "Bomber kills 12 ..." and be done with it. Two, the "suicide" modifier adds information about the nature of the bombing; it tells us that in fact the bomber was also and intentionally killed by his detonation of the bomb. That tells us something new. Fox, please, stop munging the language in a dreadfully obvious attempt to place emphasis on those killed by the bomber. No such linguistic machinations are required. I'm sure your viewers will not be tempted, even remotely, to sympathize with the bomber, at the expense of the innocent people brutally killed. You can go ahead and use the language correctly; it'll be all right.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Filling your Head
I have discovered that when I read the Wall Street Journal, I end up feeling worried about the state of things; when I read the New York Times, I end up feeling pretty good. In WSJ, Obama's health care plan will exacerbate a large (and growing) deficit incurred already by federal Medicare, Medicaid spending. The problem only gets worse! More debt! Heading for disaster!
In the New York Times, a highly competent team of economic experts have been selected by the sagacious yet pragmatic President Elect Obama, and when Bush gets out of the way (and get on it, says NYT columnist Gail Collins), we'll be on our way to sunnier days. It will be hard, sure, but with the dummy out of the way, we'll get there. Whew!
It occurred to me this morning that, a few years ago, maybe it was vice versa. Gloom and doom in the NYT, and talk about how the surge was working in the WSJ, and how the war was near to won. Anyway, I'm continuing this roller coaster of reading both. From elation to despair.
In the New York Times, a highly competent team of economic experts have been selected by the sagacious yet pragmatic President Elect Obama, and when Bush gets out of the way (and get on it, says NYT columnist Gail Collins), we'll be on our way to sunnier days. It will be hard, sure, but with the dummy out of the way, we'll get there. Whew!
It occurred to me this morning that, a few years ago, maybe it was vice versa. Gloom and doom in the NYT, and talk about how the surge was working in the WSJ, and how the war was near to won. Anyway, I'm continuing this roller coaster of reading both. From elation to despair.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Keith Olbermann
... is about as far from an objective journalist as you can find in mainstream media. If an alien, completely unbiased, would observe the press long enough to understand... I'm sure he'd (she'd, it'd) classify Olbermann and Sean Hannity together. Two non-objective people talking at us, if we care to listen.
Case in point: Olbermann's bizarre declamation of a Sept. 11 tribute during the Republican National Convention. To the extent that I understand his decidedly non-journalistic dramatism, I guess the implication he'd like us to draw is that the Republicans are wrong-headed and somehow morally stained, in a way that disqualifies them from talking about events such as Sept. 11; certainly from paying any tribute to this event during their convention. If this isn't partisan whacky from the so-called press... what is? No wonder MSNBC yanked him from journalistic duties (rumours that Tom Brokaw had some part in this). Anyway, as I said, it's Hannity, MSNBC style. For those viewers out there who treat politics like a sports contest (may my side win, no matter what!), I'm sure Olbermann delivers.
So, what gave rise to this whole just before bed tirade is my unfortunate viewing tonight of a Olbermann's latest Countdown. Consistently, conspicuously, it's always "Mr. Bush" on this episode, never "President" Bush (even if he is?). So the language is, over and over, "President-elect Obama", meeting with "Mr. Bush". Excuse me, but isn't "Mr. Bush" our current President? And, if so, isn't "President Bush" the proper nomenclature? Apparently not. But to put a happy face on things, I'm sure President-elect Obama had a fine time with this Mr. Bush fellow (I hope Mr. Bush didn't talk too long, or waste President-elect Obam's time); perhaps they discussed how Mr. Bush could some day run for high office himself.
Okay, point made. Here's the deal. I've always downgraded hard-core partisan types, on the right or left. I suspect the 2000 presidential elections debacle still rankles with Olbermann types (those partisan talking heads, I mean). But there's nothing more we can ever do than let the process--judicial, local, Supreme--take its course. President Bush was elected by this American process. And he's not therefore illegitimate, unless so too was the process itself, and its final arbiter. Perhaps there were flaws, in the details, or perhaps not. But after the Supreme Court ended our hopes or fulfilled them, what actions were left to us? A new revolution? Very American. But mostly we're not much into real revolution these days; we prefer instead to grouse endlessly. And at any rate we don't have time for it. For Mr. Olbermann, for instance, it's got to be tricky to manage much more than partisan bickering when hosting a lucrative hate-Bush segment on MSNBC. (A point not lost on me, being a Capitalist.)
To whit, we all get behind our President-elects after due process; President-elect Obama's case was much easier, winning the popular and electoral vote. But in a much closer and frustrating election, so too was our current President sworn in by due process. Sorry that many didn't like the outcome. It's part of American politics that, every four years, predictably about half of the voting public doesn't either. So get over it. We can disagree without disrespect. It's President Bush, Mr. Olbermann. That's America.
Case in point: Olbermann's bizarre declamation of a Sept. 11 tribute during the Republican National Convention. To the extent that I understand his decidedly non-journalistic dramatism, I guess the implication he'd like us to draw is that the Republicans are wrong-headed and somehow morally stained, in a way that disqualifies them from talking about events such as Sept. 11; certainly from paying any tribute to this event during their convention. If this isn't partisan whacky from the so-called press... what is? No wonder MSNBC yanked him from journalistic duties (rumours that Tom Brokaw had some part in this). Anyway, as I said, it's Hannity, MSNBC style. For those viewers out there who treat politics like a sports contest (may my side win, no matter what!), I'm sure Olbermann delivers.
So, what gave rise to this whole just before bed tirade is my unfortunate viewing tonight of a Olbermann's latest Countdown. Consistently, conspicuously, it's always "Mr. Bush" on this episode, never "President" Bush (even if he is?). So the language is, over and over, "President-elect Obama", meeting with "Mr. Bush". Excuse me, but isn't "Mr. Bush" our current President? And, if so, isn't "President Bush" the proper nomenclature? Apparently not. But to put a happy face on things, I'm sure President-elect Obama had a fine time with this Mr. Bush fellow (I hope Mr. Bush didn't talk too long, or waste President-elect Obam's time); perhaps they discussed how Mr. Bush could some day run for high office himself.
Okay, point made. Here's the deal. I've always downgraded hard-core partisan types, on the right or left. I suspect the 2000 presidential elections debacle still rankles with Olbermann types (those partisan talking heads, I mean). But there's nothing more we can ever do than let the process--judicial, local, Supreme--take its course. President Bush was elected by this American process. And he's not therefore illegitimate, unless so too was the process itself, and its final arbiter. Perhaps there were flaws, in the details, or perhaps not. But after the Supreme Court ended our hopes or fulfilled them, what actions were left to us? A new revolution? Very American. But mostly we're not much into real revolution these days; we prefer instead to grouse endlessly. And at any rate we don't have time for it. For Mr. Olbermann, for instance, it's got to be tricky to manage much more than partisan bickering when hosting a lucrative hate-Bush segment on MSNBC. (A point not lost on me, being a Capitalist.)
To whit, we all get behind our President-elects after due process; President-elect Obama's case was much easier, winning the popular and electoral vote. But in a much closer and frustrating election, so too was our current President sworn in by due process. Sorry that many didn't like the outcome. It's part of American politics that, every four years, predictably about half of the voting public doesn't either. So get over it. We can disagree without disrespect. It's President Bush, Mr. Olbermann. That's America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
