PDA

View Full Version : So ... how long until Lou Dobbs gets a job at Fox?


bjkeefe
11-11-2009, 10:16 PM
Been too long since we had a poll, don't you think?

And who do you think CNN will hire in his place, if anyone? Another brand-name conservative?

Baltimoron
11-12-2009, 01:17 AM
Have you seen this (http://www.theonion.com/content/news/breaking_u_s_deports_lou_dobbs)?

PreppyMcPrepperson
11-12-2009, 02:52 AM
Been too long since we had a poll, don't you think?

And who do you think CNN will hire in his place, if anyone? Another brand-name conservative?

My prediction/suggestion is they move Campbell Brown up to the 7 pm slot. And recruit someone new/devise a new format for the 8pm slot.

bjkeefe
11-12-2009, 09:41 AM
My prediction/suggestion is they move Campbell Brown up to the 7 pm slot. And recruit someone new/devise a new format for the 8pm slot.

Don't really know CB, so I'll take your word on that. Do you think that they'll go for an obvious conservative agitator in that 8pm slot, though? Or will they take this chance to make clear that they care about moving back to being a news channel?

look
11-12-2009, 11:41 AM
My prediction/suggestion is they move Campbell Brown up to the 7 pm slot. And recruit someone new/devise a new format for the 8pm slot.I haven't been watching a lot of TV news since the election. I'm not a CNN watcher, except sometimes I'll watch a little Wolf, if I've switched over after Matthews; occasionally, Anderson Cooper...a doll and the real deal. The Situation Room is hilarious, with its big screens and rushed interviews. Matthews is a shlub, and complete dumbass much of the time, but I have an affection for him. Now where was I going with this....?

AemJeff
11-12-2009, 11:57 AM
I haven't been watching a lot of TV news since the election. I'm not a CNN watcher, except sometimes I'll watch a little Wolf, if I've switched over after Matthews; occasionally, Anderson Cooper...a doll and the real deal. The Situation Room is hilarious, with its big screens and rushed interviews. Matthews is a shlub, and complete dumbass much of the time, but I have an affection for him. Now where was I going with this....?

I wouldnt call Matthews a "dumbass." Willfully stupid, yeah, but he has a way sometimes of undercutting a lot of the bullshit people bring to the table with his antics. I'd say he gets more right than wrong, overall - though when he's off, he can be absurdly off.

nikkibong
11-12-2009, 12:03 PM
I wouldnt call Matthews a "dumbass." Willfully stupid, yeah, but he has a way sometimes of undercutting a lot of the bullshit people bring to the table with his antics. I'd say he gets more right than wrong, overall - though when he's off, he can be absurdly off.

Hardball is the only cable news show I can stomach -- I actually quite like it. CNN's too boring, FOX is too insane, Olberman's too catty and meanspirited...but Matthews is an extremely shrewd guy, and a pretty good interviewer. His biggest problem, IMO, is constantly having certain guests on that are the epitome of "optics" obsessed, shallow, Washington journalism: dim bulbs like Howard Fineman and, the worst of all, Chuck Todd.

AemJeff
11-12-2009, 12:07 PM
Hardball is the only cable news show I can stomach -- I actually quite like it. CNN's too boring, FOX is too insane, Olberman's too catty and meanspirited...but Matthews is an extremely shrewd guy, and a pretty good interviewer. His biggest problem, IMO, is constantly having certain guests on that are the epitome of "optics" obsessed, shallow, Washington journalism: dim bulbs like Howard Fineman and, the worst of all, Chuck Todd.

I'm a fan of Todd's. I think he's a good analyst and seems to keep his thumb off the scales.

Bobby G
11-12-2009, 12:16 PM
I'm, of course, incredibly ill-informed about all this, but I would bet a very small amount of money--say, eighteen cents--that they don't replace Dobbs with a conservative and leave conservatives to Fox and liberals to MSNBC, in the hopes that they'll pick up that small segment of the world that doesn't care about ideologically-tinged analysis.

JonIrenicus
11-12-2009, 06:21 PM
Hardball is the only cable news show I can stomach -- I actually quite like it. CNN's too boring, FOX is too insane, Olberman's too catty and meanspirited...but Matthews is an extremely shrewd guy, and a pretty good interviewer. His biggest problem, IMO, is constantly having certain guests on that are the epitome of "optics" obsessed, shallow, Washington journalism: dim bulbs like Howard Fineman and, the worst of all, Chuck Todd.

Todd is one of the sane ones that appears there. He often plays the role of the adult in a room full of chimpanzees during out of control scat flinging contests at all things republican.

Todd is not conservative, but not so blind to reality that he brushes it aside if it does not work towards the liberals favor, or conservatives destruction.

bjkeefe
11-12-2009, 06:30 PM
Shorter JonIrenicus (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=137810#post137810):

Yeah, I gotta admit. If Chuck Todd were being honest about it, he'd just go get a job at Fox.






























I kid, I kid.

nikkibong
11-12-2009, 06:37 PM
Todd is one of the sane ones that appears there. He often plays the role of the adult in a room full of chimpanzees during out of control scat flinging contests at all things republican.

Todd is not conservative, but not so blind to reality that he brushes it aside if it does not work towards the liberals favor, or conservatives destruction.

You do more to further the notion that Republicans are angry, embittered males than anyone I know.

JonIrenicus
11-12-2009, 07:15 PM
You do more to further the notion that Republicans are angry, embittered males than anyone I know.

Actually, no, that would be those who post the angriest and silliest examples of conservatives at every turn. But I guess that type of work is seen as heroic truth telling and exposure by some.

bjkeefe
11-12-2009, 07:19 PM
Actually, no, that would be those who post the angriest and silliest examples of conservatives at every turn. But I guess that type of work is seen as heroic truth telling and exposure by some.

Nope. Just reporting the facts.

Unlike "some" who litter their posts with empty assertions about that mystical monolithic entity, "the left."

nikkibong
11-12-2009, 07:24 PM
Nope. Just reporting the facts.

Unlike "some" who litter their posts with empty assertions about that mystical monolithic entity, "the left."

Yep, a familiar trick, oft employed by the likes of demagogues like James Kirchick and Christopher Hitchens.

(Note: not a compliment, irenicus)

JonIrenicus
11-12-2009, 07:28 PM
Nope. Just reporting the facts.

Unlike "some" who litter their posts with empty assertions about that mystical monolithic entity, "the left."

Called a generalization, and it is somewhat nebulous by design. They are useful shorthand tools that make conversation go faster. Take it for what it is, a term used to assign a general tendency of belief or position held by a majority of the members. Now if it's not a majority, or at the very least decent number in that group, then you have free reign to hammer away at the misuse of the term.


You want percentages? Exact breakdowns of who believes what? Don't have that usually, so it serves well enough.


And if that is not clear enough, I will spell it out further. Imagine a line where the left endpoint is far left, and the right endpoint is far right.

Positions I see as not appearing any numbers on the right side or even the center, and almost exclusively on the left leaning third, I consider "left"

I could be wrong in that assessment, but that is the metric, mistaken placement or not. Now if you get far left enough, and far right enough, you often get a weird convergence, often for different reasons, but it produces some interesting and nutty results.

bjkeefe
11-12-2009, 07:34 PM
Called a generalization, and it is somewhat nebulous by design. They are useful shorthand tools that make conversation go faster. Take it for what it is, a term used to assign a general tendency of belief or position held by a majority of the members. Now if it's not a majority, or at the very least decent number in that group, then you have free reign to hammer away at the misuse of the term.

You'd do well to pick out a term, an mirror-image of wingnuts, if you will. Say, "moonbats" or "libtards." Or make up something more catchy.

This allows you to make a generalization that is almost by definition accurate. Actually, by tautology, admittedly. But the real beauty of using a more specific term is it keeps you from sounding like an embittered wingnut who can't admit that the only true statement anyone can make about "the left" is "the left never agrees about anything."

You want percentages? Exact breakdowns of who believes what? Don't have that usually, so it serves well enough.

So, you're saying, when conservatives don't know facts, that doesn't trouble them. They are perfectly content to make shit up and say it with a straight face.

See how "wingnuts" would work better in the above?

JonIrenicus
11-12-2009, 07:45 PM
You'd do well to pick out a term, an mirror-image of wingnuts, if you will. Say, "moonbats" or "libtards." Or make up something more catchy.

This allows you to make a generalization that is almost by definition accurate. Actually, by tautology, admittedly. But the real beauty of using a more specific term is it keeps you from sounding like an embittered wingnut who can't admit that the only true statement anyone can make about "the left" is "the left never agrees about anything."


...


[drivel]

Depends on how specific you want to get, if you get too specific then almost every group is going to break apart. But you can still make a claim about the tendency of belief among groups within certain ranges on the line. Not beliefs by EVERY individual, but a good number of them.

Why is this difficult? Guys, seriously, this is basic stuff. If I make a general statement like : The right has an issue with gays.

That would be a true statement, does not mean every person on the right does? or that no left person does?

It is simply a statement that the tendency of people who have "issues" with gays tend to be on the right side.

Is it just the far right? More specifically the religious right? How far do you demand it be chopped up before it passes your test? Would it ever?

If you feel so wounded by a charge or that one is too general, then just make the case that it is too general, stop whining.

TwinSwords
11-12-2009, 11:13 PM
I'm a fan of Todd's. I think he's a good analyst and seems to keep his thumb off the scales.

Most of the time, but he lets the mask slip occasionally.

Do you remember when Wesley Clark made some remark on Bob Schieffer's Sunday morning show during the campaign last year about how John McCain's having been shot down didn't mean he was a foreign policy expert? (Or something like that.)

The MSM went into a fit of hysterics, and Chuck Todd was right there with them, obviously fuming with rage on behalf of all those poor military folks who (Todd thought) Clark had insulted.

I will agree that 98% of the time, though, he plays it straight.

TwinSwords
11-12-2009, 11:13 PM
Todd is not conservative
You don't actually know that.

AemJeff
11-12-2009, 11:18 PM
Most of the time, but he lets the mask slip occasionally.

Do you remember when Wesley Clark made some remark on Bob Schieffer's Sunday morning show during the campaign last year about how John McCain's having been shot down didn't mean he was a foreign policy expert? (Or something like that.)

The MSM went into a fit of hysterics, and Chuck Todd was right there with them, obviously fuming with rage on behalf of all those poor military folks who (Todd thought) Clark had insulted.

I will agree that 98% of the time, though, he plays it straight.

Yeah. I chalked that up to tribal loyalties and McCain's mystique (which I buy into, to an extent) - as long as the ratio is 98:2 I can live with it.

TwinSwords
11-12-2009, 11:24 PM
as long as the ratio is 98:2 I can live with it.

For sure. I always keep in the back on my mind that he's a conservative (probably; I assume), and keep waiting for his next a burst of wingnuttery, but he rarely says anything I find objectionable, and quite often I think he's even fair.

I think, maybe, that like Chris Matthews, he knows where he works and tailors his routine accordingly. Matthews used to be a lot more conservative until MSNBC moved sharply to the left (in prime time), and Olbermann's influence grew, and Matthew's contract was in danger of not being renewed. Coincidental or not, it was during this confluence of events that Matthews suddenly stopped fawning over Bush and the Republicans and started sounding more like a traditional Democrat. Which, frankly, I'm enormously grateful for.

AemJeff
11-12-2009, 11:34 PM
For sure. I always keep in the back on my mind that he's a conservative (probably; I assume), and keep waiting for his next a burst of wingnuttery, but he rarely says anything I find objectionable, and quite often I think he's even fair.

I think, maybe, that like Chris Matthews, he knows where he works and tailors his routine accordingly. Matthews used to be a lot more conservative until MSNBC moved sharply to the left (in prime time), and Olbermann's influence grew, and Matthew's contract was in danger of not being renewed. Coincidental or not, it was during this confluence of events that Matthews suddenly stopped fawning over Bush and the Republicans and started sounding more like a traditional Democrat. Which, frankly, I'm enormously grateful for.

Regarding Matthews - he worked for various Democratic members of Congress (including Edmund Muskie), was a Democratic candidate for Congress himself, he wrote speeches for Jimmy Carter, and he was Tip O'Neill's chief of staff and a major player in battles against the Reagan Adminstration in that capacity. He's cantankerous and independent, but he's been a real player on the team, if you're a Democrat.

TwinSwords
11-12-2009, 11:53 PM
Regarding Matthews - he worked for various Democratic members of Congress (including Edmund Muskie), was a Democratic candidate for Congress himself, he wrote speeches for Jimmy Carter, and he was Tip O'Neill's chief of staff and a major player in battles against the Reagan Adminstration in that capacity. He's cantankerous and independent, but he's been a real player on the team, if you're a Democrat.
True enough. But throughout most of the Bush years, Matthews spent his time defending Bush/Cheney, promoting conservative positions, and advancing the interests of Republican politicians, while undermining their critics and attacking the left. At least since he made it onto my radar at the beginning of the Bush era, he was what I would call a straight conservative (albeit not a wingut). I don't really recall how he behaved during the Clinton years, when cable news was solely devoted to exploring all of Bill Clinton's various crimes. But starting at least with the early 2000s, Matthews was a classic conservative, and a major Bush booster. This ended, when? 2005? 2006? I don't know for sure what the whole exlanation is for his shifting political persona. But I'm much happier with his current incarnation.

AemJeff
11-13-2009, 12:01 AM
True enough. But throughout most of the Bush years, Matthews spent his time defending Bush/Cheney, promoting conservative positions, and advancing the interests of Republican politicians, while undermining their critics and attacking the left. At least since he made it onto my radar at the beginning of the Bush era, he was what I would call a straight conservative (albeit not a wingut). I don't really recall how he behaved during the Clinton years, when cable news was solely devoted to exploring all of Bill Clinton's various crimes. But starting at least with the early 2000s, Matthews was a classic conservative, and a major Bush booster. This ended, when? 2005? 2006? I don't know for sure what the whole exlanation is for his shifting political persona. But I'm much happier with his current incarnation.

He was, quite frankly, an annoying putz during the end of the Clinton years. My personal theory about his persona is that his personal point of view is deeply subject to his serial man-crushes and occasionally misplaced self-righteousness.

TwinSwords
11-13-2009, 01:03 AM
He was, quite frankly, an annoying putz during the end of the Clinton years. My personal theory about his persona is that his personal point of view is deeply subject to his serial man-crushes and occasionally misplaced self-righteousness.

LOL! I think that makes sense. I was afraid that was true of him during the Clinton years. By "annoying putz" I assume you mean he was one of the people piling on every night about Clinton's horrible crimes? Thinking back to those days, I can't remember there being anything else on cable news for a span of about 3 years. The full blown hysterics on every channel were truly amazing. What was really instructive was how little effect they had on public opinion. Even with CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News all agitating around the clock for Clinton's resignation, arrest, or impeachment, Clinton's approval rating just kept rising -- it went over 70% at the peak of the impeachment saga.

Truly dramatic times. But nothing like what we're about to witness in Obama's remaining three years.

claymisher
11-13-2009, 02:35 AM
Most of the time, but he lets the mask slip occasionally.

Do you remember when Wesley Clark made some remark on Bob Schieffer's Sunday morning show during the campaign last year about how John McCain's having been shot down didn't mean he was a foreign policy expert? (Or something like that.)

The MSM went into a fit of hysterics, and Chuck Todd was right there with them, obviously fuming with rage on behalf of all those poor military folks who (Todd thought) Clark had insulted.

I will agree that 98% of the time, though, he plays it straight.

Yeah, during the primaries when Chuck Todd was the guy standing by the election graphics reading off delegate counts he was cool. But when he got to sit at the grownups table he turned into just another villager.

JonIrenicus
11-13-2009, 05:31 AM
You don't actually know that.

I can't remember what I heard him say long ago, but it gave me that impression. He is definitely not as liberal as most people on msnbc, so if that is the standard for being conservative, fine.

bjkeefe
11-13-2009, 08:59 AM
Depends on how specific you want to get, if you get too specific then almost every group is going to break apart. But you can still make a claim about the tendency of belief among groups within certain ranges on the line. Not beliefs by EVERY individual, but a good number of them.

Why is this difficult? Guys, seriously, this is basic stuff. If I make a general statement like : The right has an issue with gays.

That would be a true statement, does not mean every person on the right does? or that no left person does?

It is simply a statement that the tendency of people who have "issues" with gays tend to be on the right side.

The second statement, while still too much of a generalization, is at least more accurate than the first. Assuming you had some reason for making such an observation, I don't know why you wouldn't always prefer that formulation to the first. And I also don't know why, in the first statement, you'd want to tar everyone with the same homophobic brush. It's obviously not true, and I don't see how such a statement would ever be of any use.

Is it just the far right? More specifically the religious right? How far do you demand it be chopped up before it passes your test? Would it ever?

If you feel so wounded by a charge or that one is too general, then just make the case that it is too general, stop whining.

Stop flattering yourself. I am not asking you to "pass tests," I am not "so wounded," and I am not "whining." I am criticizing a habit of yours that I think you'd benefit from addressing. You might also take some aspirin, to knock down the swelling of your self-impression.

If you actually are interested in meaningful exchanges on this board, I mean.

If, on the other hand, you're just here to regurgitate stale mantras about "the left" and make yourself feel better by pronouncing your opinions in ways that are less likely to make others want to respond and more like to make them roll their eyes and write you off as just another wingnut, then, hey, knock yourself out.

nikkibong
11-13-2009, 10:33 AM
True enough. But throughout most of the Bush years, Matthews spent his time defending Bush/Cheney, promoting conservative positions, and advancing the interests of Republican politicians, while undermining their critics and attacking the left. At least since he made it onto my radar at the beginning of the Bush era, he was what I would call a straight conservative (albeit not a wingut). I don't really recall how he behaved during the Clinton years, when cable news was solely devoted to exploring all of Bill Clinton's various crimes. But starting at least with the early 2000s, Matthews was a classic conservative, and a major Bush booster. This ended, when? 2005? 2006? I don't know for sure what the whole exlanation is for his shifting political persona. But I'm much happier with his current incarnation.

No, no, no....Matthew's love affair with Bush was short lived indeed.

He was an outspoken (is he ever any other way?) opponent of the Iraq War.

Whatfur
11-13-2009, 11:06 AM
No, no, no....Matthew's love affair with Bush was short lived indeed.

He was an outspoken (is he ever any other way?) opponent of the Iraq War.

The only thing I appreciate about the BOOB that is Matthews's is the fact that can be found to be hated on both sides and that, I guess, says something.

TwinSwords
11-13-2009, 11:58 AM
No, no, no....Matthew's love affair with Bush was short lived indeed.

He was an outspoken (is he ever any other way?) opponent of the Iraq War.
I guess our memories differ. My memory is that he was essentially a conservative pundit, though not a wingnut (and there is a noticable difference), from the time Bush took office until the shine finally came off, probably around late 2005 or 2006. (Though it was a gradual process, not sudden.)

I assume the shift can be explained by:

-- the fact that eventually even most conservatives came to dislike Bush (23% approval rating means half of conservatives disapproved of Bush),

-- there was less of a pro-Bush audience to kiss up to -- it became more fruitful for Matthews to cater to the anti-Bush crowd

-- MSNBC was changing to a more liberal network and Olbermann's influence was increasing.

-- Matthew's contract was coming up for renewal and he feared he would not be renewed unless he got in line with the new MSNBC.

I will note these are all assumptions about what might have caused Matthew's shift.

As for your impressions of Matthews prior to 2006, all I can say is maybe your memory is better than mine.

look
11-13-2009, 12:14 PM
I wouldnt call Matthews a "dumbass." Willfully stupid, yeah, but he has a way sometimes of undercutting a lot of the bullshit people bring to the table with his antics. I'd say he gets more right than wrong, overall - though when he's off, he can be absurdly off.

Hardball is the only cable news show I can stomach -- I actually quite like it. CNN's too boring, FOX is too insane, Olberman's too catty and meanspirited...but Matthews is an extremely shrewd guy, and a pretty good interviewer. His biggest problem, IMO, is constantly having certain guests on that are the epitome of "optics" obsessed, shallow, Washington journalism: dim bulbs like Howard Fineman and, the worst of all, Chuck Todd.I'll stick with dumbass (much of the time), as he comes off looking stupid during his faux outrage tirades or when he's 'pinning someone down,' which is a frequent occurence. But as I said, I have an affection for the big lug. And though he's partisan, he will occasionally talk against his side, ending with an emphatic, 'I don't like that.'

I read yesterday that CNN is going to get serious about reporting the straight news...

nikkibong
11-13-2009, 12:22 PM
I read yesterday that CNN is going to get serious about reporting the straight news...

Yep, that'll work in airports. Not sure where else.

graz
11-13-2009, 12:37 PM
Yep, that'll work in airports. Note sure where else.

That's probably right. The eight o'clock slot requires something more. It would be revolutionary if they gave the airwaves back to the people. Don't get me wrong... I'm not talking public access... but how about a forum for citizens. For instance: Tea-baggers and then rebuttal or vice versa. Not face to face shout-fests, but airtime to present the case and time for countering. Extended segments to air citizens concerns or compliments - like in a true Democracy.

bjkeefe
11-13-2009, 12:38 PM
Joe Conason thinks Dobbs has a different job (http://salon.com/news/opinion/joe_conason/index.html) in mind.

nikkibong
11-13-2009, 12:39 PM
That's probably right. The eight o'clock slot requires something more. It would be revolutionary if they gave the airwaves back to the people. Don't get me wrong... I'm not talking public access... but how about a forum for citizens. For instance: Tea-baggers and then rebuttal or vice versa. Not face to face shout-fests, but airtime to present the case and time for countering. Extended segments to air citizens concerns or compliments - like in a true Democracy.

the CNN "Apollo Project?"

Seriously, anything is better than the Carville/Matalin vaudeville routine.

popcorn_karate
11-13-2009, 12:39 PM
to be hated on both sides and that, I guess, says something.

nothing personal - but i hate that formulation. It seems the person saying it is generally some ass-bag journalist that has never gotten any damn thing right - and then they claim they must be "centrist" or "objective" because both side dislike them.

maybe. but maybe the person is just a dumb shit that pisses people off because they consistently misrepresent EVERYBODY they report on.

I suspect you just might agree that a lot of media figures fit that description, fur.

nikkibong
11-13-2009, 12:44 PM
I guess our memories differ. My memory is that he was essentially a conservative pundit, though not a wingnut (and there is a noticable difference), from the time Bush took office until the shine finally came off, probably around late 2005 or 2006. (Though it was a gradual process, not sudden.)

I assume the shift can be explained by:

-- the fact that eventually even most conservatives came to dislike Bush (23% approval rating means half of conservatives disapproved of Bush),

-- there was less of a pro-Bush audience to kiss up to -- it became more fruitful for Matthews to cater to the anti-Bush crowd

-- MSNBC was changing to a more liberal network and Olbermann's influence was increasing.

-- Matthew's contract was coming up for renewal and he feared he would not be renewed unless he got in line with the new MSNBC.

I will note these are all assumptions about what might have caused Matthew's shift.

As for your impressions of Matthews prior to 2006, all I can say is maybe your memory is better than mine.

Yeah, unfortunately you're talking to someone who watched Matthews RELIGIOUSLY as a middle school/high school student. (How many people can say that?)

Your memory is failing you:

a) you're conflating his being anti-Clinton with his being a "conservative," something he's never been,
b) at the time Matthews became stridently anti-Bush/anti Iraq-war (2002, 2003), Olbermann wasn't even on MSNBC yet, Phil Donahue was on at 8...also, when Olbermann first started Countdown, it was not opinion-oriented,
c) as Jeff enumerates, Matthews is a lifelong partisan Democrat; he even considered running for Senate as a Dem.,
d) he's not as craven as you make him out to be.

AemJeff
11-13-2009, 12:45 PM
Joe Conason thinks Dobbs has a different job (http://salon.com/news/opinion/joe_conason/index.html) in mind.

Sweet. Too bad Stockdale's unavailable.

bjkeefe
11-13-2009, 12:45 PM
nothing personal - but i hate that formulation. It seems the person saying it is generally some ass-bag journalist that has never gotten any damn thing right - and then they claim they must be "centrist" or "objective" because both side dislike them.

maybe. but maybe the person is just a dumb shit that pisses people off because they consistently misrepresent EVERYBODY they report on.

Hear, hear. Drives me crazy when some MSMer says, "Both sides are mad at me. I must be doing something right!"

bjkeefe
11-13-2009, 12:50 PM
Sweet. Too bad Stockdale's unavailable.

Who is Stockdale? And what is he doing here?

;^)

Also, NPR has more (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120351492) hints along the Conason line (thereby proving that the liberal media is a hive mind completely controlled by Ezra Klein), and they have this to say CNN's replacement plans:

CNN announced Thursday that his 7 p.m. weekday time slot will be filled in 2010 by a new show built around longtime CNN political reporter and anchor John King. The selection of King, who strives never to reflect personal ideological positions on the air, is more consistent with CNN's intended brand as a source of objective reporting.

This goes along with what look heard (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=137960#post137960), and how p_k and I feel (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=137975#post137975).

[Added] And I guess Bobby_G (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=137726#post137726) is $0.18 richer!

graz
11-13-2009, 12:59 PM
Yeah, unfortunately you're talking to someone who watched Matthews RELIGIOUSLY as a middle school/high school student. (How many people can say that?)


As I have a few years on you, I was reading him in the San Francisco Examiner, when it was still Hearst owned as the second daily (afternoon) S.F. newspaper. He was then a left leaning D.C. bureau columnist/opinion journalist.

P.S. Did anyone see that the San Francisco Chronicle , a failing newspaper, is now offered as a "glossy?":
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/11/04/financial/f064737S55.DTL

bjkeefe
11-13-2009, 01:01 PM
P.S. Did anyone see that the San Francisco Chronicle , a failing newspaper, is now offered as a "glossy?":
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/11/04/financial/f064737S55.DTL

Wow. Not that I'm rooting for this by any means, but if I ever heard something that sounded like a futile last gasp ...

Lyle
11-13-2009, 01:24 PM
No he doesn't. How can you have a career as professional journalist when you make dishonest, asinine statements such as that? Were you high or drunk when you wrote that?

JonI isn't anything but angry in his comments.

Lyle
11-13-2009, 01:25 PM
Yes, Christopher Hitchens, that true Republican.

nikkibong
11-13-2009, 03:44 PM
No he doesn't. How can you have a career as professional journalist when you make dishonest, asinine statements such as that? Were you high or drunk when you wrote that?

Hey Mr. Ombudsman, are "professional journalists" allowed to say "fuck you" ?

JonI isn't anything but angry in his comments.

LOL. Do you know what you just said?

JonIrenicus
11-13-2009, 03:47 PM
...

If, on the other hand, you're just here to regurgitate stale mantras about "the left" and make yourself feel better by pronouncing your opinions in ways that are less likely to make others want to respond and more like to make them roll their eyes and write you off as just another wingnut, then, hey, knock yourself out.

I am not going to stop using the term left to describe what I see is a general belief on the left side. If someone reads that as all people within that group, then that is on their lack of comprehension and understanding. They are free to read it that way, but I think it is a stupid way to read it. Allows people to take the support of groups within their ranks who do so for questionable reasons. Cindy Sheehan, terrible arguments, but hey, she agrees with the end result so lets not shut her out and section her off. Abortion is a Choice !!! It's about the womens right to choose. Agree with the result and end position, so who cares about how they got there. Sorry, as long as that takes place, and those people have not been clearly sectioned off, I include them in the larger, often more sane group.

I could probably stand to chop of my target ranges a bit more though. I have started sectioning off the wonderment style angle as a pacifist angle, which is distinct from standard liberal angle, though I do think the pacifists find a more natural home and greater numbers on the left leaning side.

Happy? This seems more an argument against obnoxiousness than anything else (in the sense of people feeling slighted by tarring their call name - liberal - left - with beliefs that are questionable, better to change the variable like using wingnut instead of "the right"). Just don't expect me to avoid generalizations at every turn. They have their place.

AemJeff
11-13-2009, 03:57 PM
I am not going to stop using the term left to describe what I see is a general belief on the left side. If someone reads that as all people within that group, then that is on their lack of comprehension and understanding. They are free to read it that way, but I think it is a stupid way to read it. Allows people to take the support of groups within their ranks who do so for questionable reasons. Cindy Sheehan, terrible arguments, but hey, she agrees with the end result so lets not shut her out and section her off. Abortion is a Choice !!! It's about the womens right to choose. Agree with the result and end position, so who cares about how they got there. Sorry, as long as that takes place, and those people have not been clearly sectioned off, I include them in the larger, often more sane group.

I could probably stand to chop of my target ranges a bit more though. I have started sectioning off the wonderment style angle as a pacifist angle, which is distinct from standard liberal angle, though I do think the pacifists find a more natural home and greater numbers on the left leaning side.

Happy? This seems more an argument against obnoxiousness than anything else (in the sense of people feeling slighted by tarring their call name - liberal - left - with beliefs that are questionable, better to change the variable like using wingnut instead of "the right"). Just don't expect me to avoid generalizations at every turn. They have their place.

Nobody's asked you to stop doing or saying anything. But, if you say things in a public forum, you should expect a degree of scrutiny, and possibly for people to express their own opinions about the value of what you've said.

bjkeefe
11-13-2009, 04:08 PM
Happy?

Do not concern yourself with my happiness. I am offering you possibly constructive criticism, not asking for favors.

Other than that, I guess Jeff's already (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=138021#post138021) pretty much said it.

AemJeff
11-13-2009, 04:13 PM
Do not concern yourself with my happiness. I am offering you possibly constructive criticism, not asking for favors.

Other than that, I guess Jeff's already (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=138021#post138021) pretty much said it.

Apologies for line jumping. Some things just scream out for an answer, and my self-control is far from perfect.

bjkeefe
11-13-2009, 04:52 PM
Apologies for line jumping. Some things just scream out for an answer, and my self-control is far from perfect.

No need to apologize. That's what I like about the forum structure -- anyone can jump in at any time.

Plus when you get it right, you save me some typing.

;^)

AemJeff
11-13-2009, 04:55 PM
...
Plus when you get it right, you save me some typing.

;^)

I must save you a lot of typing! ;)

bjkeefe
11-13-2009, 05:02 PM
I must save you a lot of typing! ;)

Yes, and this is easily proved by observing how few posts I have put up.

;^)

AemJeff
11-13-2009, 05:03 PM
Yes, and this is easily proved by observing how few posts I have put up.

;^)

Heh!

TwinSwords
11-13-2009, 05:43 PM
Your memory is failing you:

a) you're conflating his being anti-Clinton with his being a "conservative," something he's never been,
Impossible, because I didn't say a single word about him being anti-Clinton. I said, "I don't really recall how he behaved during the Clinton years." Jeff explained that Matthews "was, quite frankly, an annoying putz during the end of the Clinton years," to which my reply further confirms that I made no assertions of any kind that match your description above. I said, "I think that makes sense [that Matthews would have been an annoying putz]. I was afraid that was true of him during the Clinton years." I then asked Jeff to clarify what he meant by "annoying putz": "By 'annoying putz' I assume you mean he was one of the people piling on every night about Clinton's horrible crimes?"


b) at the time Matthews became stridently anti-Bush/anti Iraq-war (2002, 2003)
No reasonable person can describe Chris Matthews as stridently anti-Bush in 2002 or 2003, or even in 2005. By 2006 this started to be sort of true, though I might refrain from using the word "stridently."


Olbermann wasn't even on MSNBC yet
I said that Matthews' transition began in late 2005 or 2006, when Olbermann was at the network, and when his show was just like it is today - a liberal opinion show.


Phil Donahue was on at 8...also, when Olbermann first started Countdown, it was not opinion-oriented
This has nothing to do with anything I said.


c) as Jeff enumerates, Matthews is a lifelong partisan Democrat
Yes, I am well aware of his long history as a Democrat. It makes no difference. Zell Miller is a life long Democrat, too. The jobs Matthews held in his career have absolutely no bearing on questions of how he conducted himself during the 2000s. Furthermore, "Democrat" is not and has never been synonymous with "liberal," so proving that Matthews was a Democrat doesn't prove Matthews wasn't a Bush booster promoting conservatives and Republicans for the first half of the 2000s.


he even considered running for Senate as a Dem.
Yes, but after his re-transformation back into something more closely resembling a liberal.

And besides, his consideration of running for Senate prove nothing pertinent to this discussion. They certainly don't disprove anything I said in this thread.


d) he's not as craven as you make him out to be.
Craven? I never said he was craven. I suggested he has changed from his 2001-2005 persona to his current persona, which is more stridently liberal. And I suggested several possible reasons and clearly labeled them as speculation. Included among these possible reasons was that he might have simply had a loss of faith in Bush, as so many people did by late 2005 and 2006. I also suggested that it was distinctly possible he was afraid of losing his job when his contract was coming up for renewal at a time when Olbermann had enormous influence at MSNBC and his contretemps with Olbermann were well known and widely reported. It seems at least possible, as many others have speculated, that Matthews may have moderated his conservative approach in order to improve his chances of contract renewal.


BTW, for what it's worth, I hope you have not misunderstood me as bashing Matthews; I was simply describing him. And I don't dislike him; I like Matthews now, and I watch him regularly. (Well, listen to him while doing other things.) And I've always liked him -- although I have gotten angry at some of the things he's said over the years.

I wonder, as a fan of Matthews, do you ever disagree with him? Especially when you were a child, did you find yourself more or less agreeing with him reflexively because you liked and (I assume) admired him? I know what being a fan is like, and when I was an early-teen, I had my own infatuations with various political commenters. (Don't ask who.) And I would say that my infatuation didn't do much for my ability to critically evaluate the things they said.

claymisher
11-13-2009, 09:04 PM
Hear, hear. Drives me crazy when some MSMer says, "Both sides are mad at me. I must be doing something right!"

There's got to be a word for that phenomenon. It goes back centuries.

bjkeefe
11-13-2009, 09:37 PM
There's got to be a word for that phenomenon. It goes back centuries.

I call it "fetish for balance," but I agree, there could be a better term.

Ocean
11-13-2009, 09:39 PM
There's got to be a word for that phenomenon. It goes back centuries.

Yes, it's called wishful thinking.

claymisher
11-14-2009, 01:52 AM
Yes, it's called wishful thinking.

I was thinking of something along the lines of the argumentum ad everybody hates me fallacy. Anybody know Latin?

claymisher
11-14-2009, 01:53 AM
I call it "fetish for balance," but I agree, there could be a better term.

"Fetish for balance" is a keeper.

Ocean
11-14-2009, 08:41 AM
I was thinking of something along the lines of the argumentum ad everybody hates me fallacy. Anybody know Latin?


I suggested "wishful thinking" because the phrase contains an attempt to redeem the subject. But, following your preference for Latin argumentations, what about argumentum ad paradoxum? The strength of the phrase comes from its paradoxical quality...

P.S.: this feels like having to explain a joke, it loses its 'magic'. Sheeesh!

claymisher
11-14-2009, 12:44 PM
I suggested "wishful thinking" because the phrase contains an attempt to redeem the subject. But, following your preference for Latin argumentations, what about argumentum ad paradoxum? The strength of the phrase comes from its paradoxical quality...

P.S.: this feels like having to explain a joke, it loses its 'magic'. Sheeesh!

It's definitely an instance of wishful thinking, but it doesn't go the other way -- "wishful thinking" doesn't mean you think you're right because everybody disagrees with you.

Ocean
11-14-2009, 12:56 PM
-- "wishful thinking" doesn't mean you think you're right because everybody disagrees with you.

True. All it means is that you think things will turn out to be the way you want them to be, (even if it goes against all odds).

I think we should drop this. It's been covered sufficiently, Clay.

claymisher
11-14-2009, 02:02 PM
True. All it means is that you think things will turn out to be the way you want them to be, (even if it goes against all odds).

I think we should drop this. It's been covered sufficiently, Clay.

Oh no, I have LOTS more to say. I'm just getting started! :P

Ocean
11-14-2009, 02:43 PM
Oh no, I have LOTS more to say. I'm just getting started! :P

OK. Keep going. Let it out. I'll keep you company.

kezboard
11-14-2009, 02:54 PM
It's a combination of the opposite of the argument from popularity (everyone disagrees with me) and the opposite of the argument from authority (people who are untrustworthy disagree with me). I humbly submit that it be called either the argument from martyrdom or the worm-eater's fallacy, because nobody loves me, everybody hates me, guess I must be right.

Bobby G
11-14-2009, 05:35 PM
Yay! Now I only owe $999.72 on my bet that invading Iraq would be a good idea.

bjkeefe
11-14-2009, 05:42 PM
Yay! Now I only owe $999.72 on my bet that invading Iraq would be a good idea.

How so? Did you already pay off a dime, or did you originally bet $999.90?

</math-nerd>

Bobby G
11-14-2009, 10:16 PM
D'oh.

Uh...let's say I paid off a dime.

TwinSwords
11-17-2009, 07:44 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aVEKIOfMwU

bjkeefe
11-17-2009, 09:30 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aVEKIOfMwU

I watched as much as I could stand (about half). I was going to say something about the hilarity of Bill O'Reilly's determination to stick to HIS narrative ("CNN wants no dissent now that Obama is president!!!1!"), no matter what his guest said, and no matter even his own acknowledgment that Dobb's numbers were tanking, but meh. Who doesn't already know this about the Blowhard?

However, Jim Newell watched a segment of the same interview, and caught a part I didn't have the patience to arrive at: "Lou Dobbs And Bill O’Reilly Have Very Serious Discussion About Satan (http://wonkette.com/412235/lou-dobbs-and-bill-oreilly-have-very-serious-discussion-about-satan)."

Lyle
11-17-2009, 04:46 PM
Bah... I write quickly. You know what I meant.

I'm not sure fuck you is a part of Bob Wright's lexicon.

claymisher
11-20-2009, 01:35 PM
Yeah, during the primaries when Chuck Todd was the guy standing by the election graphics reading off delegate counts he was cool. But when he got to sit at the grownups table he turned into just another villager.


From http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=30145

http://www.balloon-juice.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/clueless.png

John and I were just discussing Chuck Todd’s unbelievably idiotic tweet defending McCain’s latest primary-induced flip-flop. Todd’s an idiot, but not as dumb as Howie Kurtz—was John’s take on it. Mine is that neither Todd nor Kurtz is dumb in the usual sense. To stay in the good graces of elite media is simple—just keep saying everything is good news for conservatives, that we are a center-right nation, that John McCain is a principled maverick and so on. Criticize the Iraq war and you get shit-canned—ask Ashleigh Banfield or Phil Donahue. Any reporter interested in having a cushy, high-paying gig for the rest of his or her life would be foolish not to keep repeating the Village-approved talking points.

It really is that simple.

I realize that, per Forrest Gump, one could argue that stupid is as stupid does. And obviously, saying things that aren’t true, making incorrect predictions, etc. is in some sense stupid. So I see that point.

Here’s how I look at it: once a barnacle finds a good rock to attach itself to, the barnacle eats its brain, because it doesn’t need the brain anymore. The barnacle would be stupid not to eat its own brain.

bjkeefe
11-20-2009, 02:20 PM
From http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=30145

Yep. As I said elsewhere (http://twitter.com/bjkeefe/status/5893282428), after following links from that same post:

To a Villager like @chucktodd, it MUST be Obama's fault. Flip side to "excellent news for John McCain."

Do you not love your Liberal Media™ overlords?

bjkeefe
11-20-2009, 07:03 PM
From http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=30145

Cesca's take (http://www.bobcesca.com/blog-archives/2009/11/doof_quote_of_t_66.html):

You're probably familiar with the campaign to get country-of-origin labels on food? Likewise, I think reporters should have to provide the names of every villager they're parroting. So this one is probably Chuck Todd parroting Joe Scarborough parroting David Gregory parroting [etc, etc, etc] parroting Mark Halperin parroting Drudge who blames everything on President Obama.

claymisher
12-18-2009, 06:49 PM
It's a combination of the opposite of the argument from popularity (everyone disagrees with me) and the opposite of the argument from authority (people who are untrustworthy disagree with me). I humbly submit that it be called either the argument from martyrdom or the worm-eater's fallacy, because nobody loves me, everybody hates me, guess I must be right.

Now that Joe Lieberman is in the news I think about these all the time.

Whatfur
12-21-2009, 08:56 AM
Looks like the majority here are wrong already (what were the odds?).

Those that said never, are looking pretty inciteful. (http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2009/12/20/2009-12-20_side_dish_kate_hudsons_folks_goldie_hawn__kurt_ russell_help_her_get_over_arod.html?page=1)