On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 2:00 AM, Kevin M. <drunkbastar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> How many different times in Bush's eight years did Keith call for his > removal from office? That's what you missed. If he set a standard for > all politicians and then reacted the same way regardless of who let > him down, I could accept that. But here was a situation where Keith > openly crusaded for an issue near and dear to him and was let down by > a man he supported, but he just shrugged it off. Why wasn't Barack > Obama declared The Worst Person In The World? Obama had a majority and > the support of the American people; why didn't Keith condemn him when > he let the nation down so spectacularly? Because it isn't about > ideology -- it is about politics, and that is just crap. > I give up - how many times did Olbermann name Bush the WPITW? I have Obama on that list at least once (though before he was elected President). I think that segment gets entirely too much attention in the discussion about KO - it is obviously an exercise in hyperbole. But that is besides the point. You said Keith should have called for Obama's impeachment, and labled him a War Criminal, because he signed a Health Bill that you think Keith disagreed with, apparently because Keith did call for the impeachment of Bush, and labeled him a War Criminal, for launching an illegal war and authorizing torture. My point is that this is absurd, and obviously not the same thing. KO was not simply using terms like impeachment and War Criminal to describe Bush whenever he did something he didn't like, and he simply was not a political hack willing to stretch any truth to any length to score political points. Now, if you want to make the very different argument, that Obama is continuing an illegal war in Iraq, and continuing to authorize torture, and because of this should be impeached and labeled a war criminal, you at least have a plausible case (though you would have to actually go through the process of making the case). I may disagree with your interpretation of the actual facts, but the structure of the argument would make sense - something like: KO called for the impeachment of Bush when he conducted an illegal war in Iraq, so it is hypocritical of him not to call for the impeachment of Obama when he continues that illegal war". But it is not plausible to argue that "since KO called Bush a war criminal whenever he did something KO didn't like, KO should also call Obama a war criminal whenever he does something KO doesnt like". That is what is absurd. > > Did you watch the interview? Because she [Rachel Madow] believes she and > Stewart are > doing the same job. Which means either she thinks Stewart is a > journalist (which he isn't) or she doesn't think she is (which she is > supposed to be). That is not what she means. She means both she and Stewart are calling for the media to be more responsible watchdogs of political leaders (he in his role as a satirist, she in her role as a journalist). Perhaps you don't think Stewart is a satirist, or don't think Rachel is a journalist - reasonable people can disagree about such things. But the fact that satirists and journalists have some common functions does not necessarily mean that either the satirist is really a journalist, or the journalist is really a satirist. Again, I'd say your political views are clouding the issue. You say > Rachel Maddow is a credible journalist, though in the interview she > cannot distinguish between her job and the satire done on The Daily > Show. I would suggest Sean Hannity would not consider himself more > akin to Stewart, though that is how you perceive him. Both FoxNews and > MSNBC are producing shoddy journalism, albeit using vastly different > approaches, targeting vastly different audiences. Until (and please > forgive the cliche) both sides take off their partisan blinders, the > condition will only get worse. Right now, I agree and have never > denied that there are differences between FoxNews and MSNBC, but that > gap is closing rapidly. > My political blinders have nothing to do with this particular point. There are lots of conservatives who make the same point about Fox News that I do (including many at legitimate conservative journalism shops, like National Review). And as I have posted on this list for several years now, I am not a fan of MSNBC, and was very critical of their coverage of the 2008 Presidential campaign. But the analogy between Fox News and MSNBC is simply false, as in not true. The problem is not that FN is 5 points to the right of ideological neutral and MSNBC is 4 points to the left. They are not both simply "shoddy news operations", with one being a little shoddier than the other. Only one is a shoddy news operation (MSNBC), the other is a very good political communication operation. The two organizations exist on completely different dimensions. MSNBC is a television news operation, with a particular ideological point of view, that is too often not good enough (I would give them something like a 6 or 7 on a 10 point scale). FN is a television ideological operation, with a particular emphasis on communicating their propaganda using the form of news. They are actually very good at this (I would give them something like an 8 or a 9 on a 10 point scale). If both sides took off their partisan blinders as you put it, MSNBC would still be a shoddy news organization, while FN would cease to exist. The reason that I compare Hannity to Stewart, and call the FN guys clowns, is that, like Stewart, their ultimate goal is to entertain. Hannity and friends entertain with a very conservative ideological spin, while Stewart has a moderately liberal spin (Colbert is, and always has been, even when he was on TDS, much more of a true liberal). -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
