Sunday, April 15, 2012
Slow-Pitch Cities
Ed Schultz the other night referred to (quite rightly, in my estimation) Sean Hannity's interview with George Zimmerman's father as a "softball interview". Fair enough. The only problem here is that several days after this comment, Mr. Schultz conducted an interview with Vice President Biden and practically performed oral sex on the fellow.......................................................................................The way that I see it, folks, maybe we should just leave these interviews to the professionals like Anderson Cooper and Wolf Blitzer (hell, even Fox News's Bret Baier is half decent), and simply let these ramrods like Hannity and Schultz continue to drool, foam at the mouth, etc.. The country, I think, would be infinitely better served by it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
50 comments:
You are so correct, that if you look at these two "sides" objectively and with as little blind partisan bias as possible, they are exactly the same in all matters except for the particular ideology they are using lies, deception, misinformation, and lowbrow, unprofessional tactics to get across.
MSNBC pundits give their opinions. Perhaps dmarks can find some instances where some MSNBC pundit has gotten a fact wrong (made a mistake), but that isn't comparable to the lying that goes on at Fox Nooz.
If someone tells me that "they are exactly the same in all matters except for the particular ideology they are using" I know this person is incapable of looking at the two networks "objectively".
If they really were objective they would acknowledge the very real difference (one side gives opinion while the other does propaganda).
And the difference being it is opinion if you personally agree with it, and propaganda if you don't.
That may be how you view it dmarks, but it isn't how I view it. Propaganda is pushing an agenda using ALL means available to you, which includes lying. The fact that Fox Nooz lies is well documented.
Ed Schultz spliced tape to make that Perry idiot look bad. Splicing tape is identical to lying.
He apologized and said it was an accident. Also, what proof that it was Ed Schultz that personally spliced the tape?
Will: Splicing tape is identical to lying.
No it isn't. Tape is often spliced to save time. The people who do it for that reason try to preserve the intent of the speakers they are splicing. That is most likely where the mistake was made in the case you cite. Whoever spliced the tape (mistakenly) believed the end result accurately represented the overall meaning of Perry's comments.
Sorry, wd. That was not an error. The end result was just too convenient and supportive of the narrative that Mr. Schultz was trying to put forth.......And, seriously, do you say that same thing when Hannity and Fox are splicing their tape, that it was just an error? Come on, man!
Your opinion differs from mine on this subject. Also, regarding the Fox Nooz splices... have they ever apologized? I think they have a history of ignoring the cases where they are called on their deceptions (I don't think you can claim it's a mistake unless you first acknowledge you've done wrong).
Will correctly said: "Ed Schultz spliced tape to make that Perry idiot look bad. Splicing tape is identical to lying."
Let's refer to a real dictionary (instead of the Urban Dictionary.... gee I hope you don't encourage your high school kids to refer to this one when writing papers!
Propaganda:
"Information, esp. of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view."
Yes, Will knows what he is talking about.
It's best just to read Truth 101.
Truth: Why? It's all right-wing BS. After all, in a recent comment WD said you were one of a bunch of Republicans.
wink
Truth 101: It's best just to read Truth 101.
That's a blog I used to read and comment on. Until it's proprietor said unkind things about me behind my back. I wouldn't care particularly, except for the fact that Will brings it up quite regularly... that's despite the "apology" he made at the time. (for revealing that info). We now know that was a lie.
dmarks: Truth: Why? It's all right-wing BS. After all, in a recent comment WD said you were one of a bunch of Republicans. wink.
The "wink" means he's lying. I did not say this. dmarks got confused, as happens quite frequently.
But back to the lying: I clarified my comment, so dmarks knows for a FACT I didn't intend to say any such thing. He thinks it's funny to take some one's comment 100 percent literally and then accuse them of saying something he KNOWS they did not mean.
He thinks it's hysterical but it's really very annoying. Annoying like when someone calls you nuts behind your back and then says you're "too sensitive" for being perturbed.
I've called people far worse things than "nuts" WD.
But I never once called you a republican.
You sir are the meanie.
Truth 101: I've called people far worse things than "nuts" WD. But I never once called you a republican. You sir are the meanie.
And you're a jerk. I told you dmarks is lying. Yet you believe him with no proof and no idea what conversation he's referring to.
"Will: Names; me, dmarks, Truth, RN, Rusty, Marcus, Voltrin, Beach Bum, Silverfiddle, HR. I mean, my God, even a nice liberal fellow like John Myste once referred to you as maniac...A bunch of Republicans? That's a badge of honor as far as I'm concerned. And I've never seen John Myste use that word. I think you're wrong on that one."......Well, wd, you did use a question mark, so I guess that technically you weren't calling Truth a Republican.......And I only brought it up once post the apology, and only then because, well, you WERE being a nut.
The list of names you gave included a bunch of Republicans*... plus others who aren't. By "bunch of Republicans*" I was only referring to those who are. Excuse me if I assumed that everyone would know I wasn't calling people who identify as Democrat Republican. I apologize for underestimating your obtuseness.
* I will concede that I should have used the word "Conservatives". The list is mostly names of Conservatives (plus 2 non-Conservatives).
The fact remains (and it's a fact you are ignoring) is that I don't care about these people's opinions. There are probably numerous other Democrats/Liberals they (the Conservatives) do not think highly of.
Also, dmarks is a hypocrite. I corrected his spelling once and he accused me of a history of "spelling flames", but I make a comment that might be a little unclear... and he jumps on it and refuses to let it go even after I clarify what I meant.
And he also jumps on my use of words that have alternate meanings. He insists I meant the meaning which renders my comment incorrect. And he continues even after I clarify what I meant (and he does this even if I'm clear what meaning I intended in the original comment).
dmarks is a far, far worse "word police" offender than I am. I've found that is something that people generally find annoying. But I'm guessing Will approves because dmarks has never pulled this BS with a comment of his.
"being a nut" = leaving comments Will Hart disagrees with.
I gave you an "out", wd, by notating the question mark. And you'll just have to excuse my obtuseness, I guess (the fact that I was doing little more than providing the statement which said didn't exist and that dmarks was a liar).
Uh, not exactly, wd. I was providing an example of Rachel Maddow engaging in what SHE herself clearly deemed to be journalism and you did a bunch of verbal gymnastics to stay true to you belief that Maddow and her like are simply frigging opinion people. It was yet another example of you saying that the sky was green when it clearly was blue.
Will: the fact that I was doing little more than providing the statement which said didn't exist and that dmarks was a liar.
I did not say the comment didn't exist. I said he misinterpreted what I meant (on purpose, I suspect). I said this in the original comment thread, so YES you are definitely being obtuse.
Will: ...you did a bunch of verbal gymnastics to stay true to your belief...
I did not. I explained the concept of opinion journalism to you. A concept you obviously don't understand. I fail to see how it makes me a nut that you don't understand the concept.
I think that reflects poorly on you, not me.
"I did not. I explained the concept of opinion journalism to you"
You've mad abundantly clear that an opinion journalist is someone you would (and do) call a propagandist if not for there being a (D) after their name.
From Dmark's comment "You've mad abundantly clear"
See! Dmarks made the Freudian slip of typing "mad" instead of "made."
He's saying you're "mad" WD.
That filthy republican dog!
Caught again Dmarks.
Truth: Oops. I let that one slip. I need to be more careful as WD likes to go bonkers with spalling flames.
AAAGGGGH! Dmarks said bonkers!
He's like the Knight who says "nuts."
Brazil nuts or macedamia* ?
dmarks lied: I need to be more careful as WD likes to go bonkers with spalling flames.
I've never gone "bonkers" with a spelling flame. Not once. You're lying. And I'm guessing you misspelled "spelling" on purpose so you could catch me at it? Unfortunately it didn't work.
dmarks lied: You've made abundantly clear that an opinion journalist is someone you would (and do) call a propagandist if not for there being a (D) after their name.
Actually, what I've made abundantly clear is that I do not hold this opinion. I call Fox Nooz propaganda not due to my disagreements with their ideological perspectives, but due to the well documented lying.
I don't need you to explain the concept of opinion journalism to me, wd. It's in the fucking title. But in that previous thread you were trying to say that Rachel Maddow was strictly a pundit and that what she was doing WASN'T journalism. I blew that out of the water by showing to you how she HERSELF was literally couching everything in journalistic jargonese. The woman (and, yes, Hannity and O'Reilly are guilty of this, too) was clearly trying to come off as a journalist of sorts and having it both ways. Yes, it is in fact a crappy form of journalism BUT it's in the fucking title, dude.
Will, you expect anything differnr from wolfie? Ya gotta give him credit for being consistent though. Consistently spinning issues to support the most extreme leftist position possible.
I hear ya' (and 5..4..3..2..1 on another anti-Ayn Rand rant). I do apologize for the profanity, though.
You know what? I honestly don't care. You don't like it. I think your objections would leave many people seriously perplexed. Also, it isn't going away. We're only getting more of it (i.e. Current's recent format change from a channel that featured "viewer generated" content to a opinion/news channel).
In any case, they do BOTH. Give their opinion (which isn't "news"). AND "report" stories. Granted, there are some people who can't tell the difference (between opinion and news)... but I think we're both going to have to just live with it.
btw, I'm looking forward to your anti-Ayn Rand rant. Perhaps we can find something to agree on here. But this comment of yours if from yesterday, and it sounds like you're saying you were going to post something impenitently... I guess you decided to work on it some more? I'll have to keep checking back.
Good, you're admitting it (i.e., that clowns such as Maddow, O'Reilly, and Hannity DO cloak their opinions in journalistic jargonese and DO try and have it both ways).
Will: And only a blindly partisan boob can't see that the three you named are exactly the same in this regard.
Will: Good, you're admitting it (i.e., that clowns such as Maddow, O'Reilly, and Hannity DO cloak their opinions in journalistic jargonese and DO try and have it both ways).
I "admit" no such thing. You say "deception" is taking place. I agree regarding O'Reilly and Hannity. I disagree concerning Rachel Maddow. There is no "cloaking" or use of "jargonese" that takes place on her program. I've watched it... regularly in fact.
And I'm ignoring dmarks' BS which is obviously directed at me. I think he's a boob.
"I agree regarding O'Reilly and Hannity. I disagree concerning Rachel Maddow."
Exactly. They all do the exact same thing. But the one on your side gets a free pass, due to ideology.
No free passes.
"Our reporting", "this story", "our coverage".
Will: "Our reporting", "this story", "our coverage".
So you want to shut em up? dmarks has to lie when he criticizes me for wanting to silence Fox Nooz, but you're totally up front about wanting to silence both... and the hypocrite says nothing.
Probably because most of your complaining is about MSNBC... no doubt dmarks' bias is also toward this organization, he just can't say so because it would destroy the "non partisan" facade he thinks he's carefully constructed.
"dmarks has to lie when he criticizes me for wanting to silence Fox News,"
I only tell the truth there.
"no doubt dmarks' bias is also toward this organization, he just can't say so because it would destroy the "non partisan" facade he thinks he's carefully constructed."
There's no facade. As I lean conservative, I do prefer Fox News. But I know very well that when one steps back and looks at things from the most objective point of view possible, MSNBC and Fox News are really quite similar. Identical in the important ways we have been discussing.
I don't have any "non-partisan" facade. But I am easily able to look at things from the center, instead of mispercieving that my own viewpoint is the center.
dmarks: I only tell the truth there.
No, you're lying. Just like you lie when you say you believe voters make informed decisions regarding who to cast their ballots for. You say they know their own lives better than you do. But I don't know my own mind better than you? You know better than me that I want Fox silenced?
Thus it has been proven beyond any doubt that dmarks is a hypocrite and a liar.
dmarks: I do prefer Fox News.
First of all: I knew it. That's why you're so offended when I point out (correctly) that they lie. And the lying is SO egregious that you know you can't deny it. That's why you have to accuse MSNBC of lying also.
It's the Republican strategy: If your crimes are so obvious that you know denying them is futile... you accuse the other side of the same crimes. That way the voter thinks they have to make a decision between two equally bad options... instead of one bad one and one good one (in which case the only rational choice would be to vote Democratic).
Secondly, why don't you speak up when Will says he wants to silence this organization?
I don't want to silence, either, wd. I would just much rather prefer that a straight news person be the host and then have people like Maddow and Hannity on for commentary. I just don't feel comfortable with ideologues of any stripe dictating the narrative and/or having total editorial control.
And I don't think everybody on Fox and MSNBC are dreadful. Shepard Smith and Chuck Todd both do exceptional reporting, in my opinion.
Will: I don't want to silence, either, wd. I would just much rather prefer that a straight news person be the host and then have people like Maddow and Hannity on for commentary.
So, in other words, these posts where you rail against opinion journalism and advocate for a return to "real" journalism are pure flights of fantasy? You do realize this will never happen, do you not?
Chuck Todd = Tool
I'm swimming against the tide, wd. I realize that. That's not an excuse for not speaking out.
Then I'm going to continue speaking out against your slamming of this profession. I don't like Fox Nooz, but I do like MSNBC and would be quite sad if it went away.
The profession of rallying, pamphleteering, and oversimplifying one-sidedness? You're going to continue to support THAT? Knock yourself out, fella'.
I was referring to Opinion journalism. I don't support oversimplifying one-sidedness.
Post a Comment