I don’t hate Somerby. I do read his blog but generally only a few posts a month and that’s all I can take.
Somerby has chosen a very unpopular job: a progressive who spends a fair amount of his time criticizing the “liberal” and “progressive” media and political establishments. For that he is to be commended. The establishment of the left isn’t faultless and needs to be criticized. As the influence of the blogoshpere has increased I think that Somerby has naturally tended to pay more attention to it. Where it all turns to custard is the way in which Somerby goes about his criticism. Yes I’m talking about the dreaded ‘tone’ and also the repetitiveness of his criticism. I don’t know if his shtick is meant to be humorous but it no longer tickles my funny bone. I’m over it.
It really has come to the point, where to my mind at least, some Daily Howler posts are unrelenting in their name calling and rather weak on factual criticism. Somerby makes some good points but only seldom is the criticism constructive. And I think that’s primarily where he falls flat. Let’s face it, the right-wing media and blogosphere could care less about what Somerby thinks or writes about them. The left-wing blogosphere (his ‘nominal allies’) and to a lesser extent the left-wing media probably do care but he often comes across as such an asshole that he ironically makes it easier to walk away from such criticism. I feel like he pisses away his best chance of making a difference. Yes maybe his targets need to toughen up but maybe Somerby also needs to take a step back from his blog persona and think about what it is he’s trying to accomplish and what the best way to accomplish it is. He’s got the chops but what I attribute to bitterness and anger take away from his criticism. They make it indigestible.
Lately I’ve found myself reading the Daily Howler using the same metrics that Somerby himself applies to others. I don’t think that the results are that flattering for Bob. Work isn’t shown, he often plays the mind reading game, and his research, apparently impeccable for all things Gore, routinely falls flat. This is most unsatisfying for somebody that sets such a high bar for others.
I started this post a long time ago but pretty much gave up on it as laziness consumed and as the moment passed. It was about the Keith Olbermann dust up of a few months ago, which I actually didn’t follow that closely. But at the time it reminded me of a DH post of 19 February, which I found less than satisfactory. It’s probably been already covered in a much better fashion elsewhere but the original (unfinished) post is below the fold.
- THE SETUP
But for an even better example, consider the groaning segment Keith Olbermann staged with Laura Flanders this past Tuesday night.
Sad. The segment concerned Sarah Palin—and therefore, in accordance with Pseudo-Prog Law, it had to turn on two key notions: Sarah Palin is blindingly stupid, and she’s the world’s biggest hypocrite. Ironically, there was nothing so stupid that Keith wouldn’t say it, so long as it furthered these judgments…The nonsense began right at the start of the show, as Olbermann teased the upcoming segment. Treating his viewers like absolute fools, the man called “Big Stupid” said this:
OLBERMANN (2/17/09): Two out of two Palin mothers agree—abstinence-only programs don’t work.
BRISTOL PALIN (videotape): Everyone should be abstinent, but it’s not realistic at all.
SARAH PALIN (videotape): Yes, abstinence, you know. Hey, don’t get pregnant.
Just like that, Olbermann told the rubes that Governor Palin had somehow “agreed” that “abstinence-only programs don’t work.” He presented a truncated quote from Greta Von Susteren’s Monday night program on Fox—a quote which supposedly drove home his point.
In fact, Sarah Palin had never addressed the question of whether abstinence-only programs “work;” in fact, she never discussed such programs at all. (For that reason, the quote he presented was highly truncated.) But soon, he was teasing the segment again—and he had some new snark to deliver:”
Bob show us your work, please! What’s the context of Sarah Palin’s quote? Can you be bothered to untruncate this quote lowly so we can evaluate your point? Your answer may be correct but we’ll never know why. Ironically, this is exactly what you accuse KO of doing throughout this post, making snarky, unsubstantiated comments, but just like KO you don’t tell us why.
- THE INSULTS
Keith hits all the Big Topics. But in what way had Governor Palin been “kind of taught the reality of the world by her own daughter?” It what way did she “suddenly have a different outlook on abstinence-only sex-ed?” It wasn’t real clear, but the claim sounded snarky, so he teased it out—loud, dumb and clear.
Of course, by the time Olbermann’s segment began, it was time to go straight to the insults—insults which needed no explanation. Here’s the way “Big Stupid” began his segment on the two Palin moms:
OLBERMANN: There is a whistle blower in the house of hypocrisy that is Governor Sarah Palin—her daughter, Bristol. In our third story on the Countdown, she`s now speaking out about being a teenage mother and she says that abstinence is not realistic, and that having her baby was her own “choice,” and that her mother’s view on that, quote, “doesn’t matter.” In fact, Bristol Palin said she would love to be an advocate. Quoting her, “I hope that people learn from my story and just like prevent teen pregnancy, I guess.”
By now, the governor was a “house of hypocrisy”—though Olbermann still hadn’t made the slightest attempt to explain the unflattering claim. In the world of Big Stupid Cable, it’s all about handing the rubes preferred narratives, the ones they turn on your program to hear—and Olbermann seems to love nothing more than beating up on Palin. He no longer gets to mock the young blondes, something he used to do every night, but Palin seems suitable as a replacement. And he doesn’t waste much time explaining what’s actually wrong with Palin’s views—or even what they are. It’s all about calling the lady stupid—and it’s all about calling her a hypocrite, without quite explaining why. And of course, the tasteless insults fly. This is the way the chat began when he introduced the evening’s tough moll, Flanders. Note: In his question, he’s still pretending that Sarah Palin has somehow changed her stance on education, now that her own daughter’s pregnant:
When did KO call Sarah Palin stupid? Bob called KO stupid, in fact he called him “Big Stupid” twice (!) but that’s OK because Bob hates KO and KO is stupid because Bob says he is but SP isn’t stupid because KO says she is….and that is why….capiche?
THE JOKE
FLANDERS: I think there is a name for people who only teach their kids about abstinence and that’s “grandparents.” And Sarah Palin is finding that out. The scariest thing in that conversation with Greta Van Susteren was—well, I thought the scariest thing was the part where Bristol Palin said that talking with her mother was worse than labor. I mean, I guess Katie Couric found that out. Can any of us imagine what a Palin presidency would be like? Like a Nadya Suleman labor?
A Palin presidency would be “like a Nadya Suleman labor.” Laura Flanders was keeping it classy—and respectful feminist that she of course is, she was crawling up Suleman’s snatch in pursuit of prime insults for Palin.No, Palin is never going to be president—but Olbermann will keep presenting guests who serve his viewers tacky, gender-based insults. He can’t mock Lohan or Kirsten Dunst any more—the network was getting in too much trouble for the way its various male hosts were behaving—but he’s still allowed to speak this way about Palin! But let’s continue! Having sneered about Suleman’s labor, Flanders found the next destination—the claim that Palin is very stupid, unlike us in our much brighter clan:
Ah the ‘joke.’ Was it funny? Meh. But that may in part because I had to google Nadya Suleman to figure out who she is and the immediacy of the humor was lost on me. Was Flanders, “the respectful feminist that she is,” crawling up NS’s vagina “in pursuit of prime insults for Palin?” Was this a “gender based insult?” Well the insult was gender based in that only women can go through labor. But was it an insult at the expense of WOMEN or because SP is a woman? I really don’t think so. However, it is a joke at the expense of two people, NS and SP, who happen to be women. Yes, it would have been more “classy” if the joke was never told. And it would have been more “classy” if the whole wide world didn’t know who NS is. But this is a much, much larger problem than the KO show, and the Flanders joke. Perhaps that is Bob’s larger point but it gets lost in the tone and silliness of this post.
Bob also makes an unsubstantiated claim that KO is “still allowed to speak this way [gender based insults] about Palin!” But Bob presents no evidence that KO himself is making gender based insults in this segment. Bad Bob! And let’s talk about the sneer. Isn’t this the type of thing that Bob hates? The attribution of thoughts and feelings that are unprovable? Was Al Gore really an angry sighing freak?
-
THE PROOF
FLANDERS: Well, I don’t think that not getting it has ever been a real obstacle for Sarah Palin.
In fact, the governor had given no “signal” that she had changed her mind about sex education at all. And by the way: Does Governor Palin actually favor abstinence-only education? We don’t know, and we don’t hugely care (see comment about presidential prospects above). But when Palin’s last campaign began (last September), the Anchorage Daily News noted that her spokeswoman said that Palin didn’t support abstinence-only education (click here). And Palin had said the same thing in her prior campaign, in a 2006 gubernatorial debate, the New York Times soon reported (click here). No matter! She’ll always support abstinence-only when you watch Countdown, where she’ll also be a hypocrite—and deeply stupid, of course. In fact, the highlighted comment by Olbermann was utterly stupid. But it led Flanders back to her script:
This is the part that I love, the part where we get proof of the rube playing!!!! Except when I click the first link I get this:
Eagle Forum: Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?
Palin: “Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.”
But asked about Palin’s views on sex education last week, Maria Comella, her spokeswoman in the vice-presidential campaign, said Palin “supports sex education in terms of teaching of contraceptives and everything.” She doesn’t support “abstinence-only” education, Comella said.
So Palin didn’t support sex education at some point in her career but changed her mind later on. When did she change her mind? Well it seems, according to this article at least, that the mind change occurred some time “last week” or circa Sept 1 2008. When did the public become aware of BP’s pregnancy? That happened on Sept 1 2008. If you are trying to disprove hypocrisy this would seem like a key point. Did SP’s public views on sex education change before or after the pregnancy of her daughter became known?
But the second link is the killer:
She [SP] said she favored the teaching of abstinence — along with the teaching of sex education. “Let the kids debate both sides,” she said.
Well that’s mighty open-minded of her if a bit vague and awkwardly worded. It seems that KO might be wrong on the hypocrisy charge. And then you notice that this article is written by Katherine Q. Seeyle. Hmmm, where have I seen that name before? Oh yes I remember now! Remember that “Katharine “Kit” Seelye lives to spin you” except in this case, in which I am absolutely sure that her reporting is impeccable.
-
YOU CHOOSE
FLANDERS: Well, again, you have got that “getting it” question.
Sorry, but Bristol Palin’s use of the word “choice” didn’t mean squat in the way Keith implied. His repeated statement to this effect was dumb beyond all dumbness. But so what? To people like Flanders and Olbermann, social questions present the chance for “progressives” to express their superiority to those who hold different views. And of course, there’s nothing so stupid that they themselves won’t say it, if it helps a gang of pitiful rubes believe that they’re much smarter and better than those with whom they disagree.
Here at THE HOWLER, we’re pro-choice; we have no particular views about sex education. (Like you—like Olbermann—we’ve never studied it.) But Olbermann’s presentation was utterly stupid throughout, in a wide array of ways. (If the gentleman has even average intelligence, it was presumably deeply dishonest as well.) But on pseudo-progressive cable “news,” you’re now handed large cans of pure crap, just as you were handed pure crap all through the disastrous 1990s. (Many current liberal heroes were deeply involved in that process.) The targets have changed—but the methods remain. Flanders and Olbermann were keeping it classy, sticking their noses up Suleman’s snatch to serve the demand for fresh insult. And there was nothing so stupid that they wouldn’t say it, to help the rubes know they’re way smart.
How stupid was Olbermann on this topic? Deeply, profoundly, defiantly stupid. But his effort was all about praising the clan. It’s the oldest preferred tale in the book.
Choice? How about giving us a choice by showing your work. Bob states flat out that KO completely misrepresents BP’s statement but doesn’t show us the original. I need a little hand holding here. I need some help. Or should I just trust you? We’re the smart ones right? We’re too cool for rube school, aren’t we?
And of course the inevitable part of the post where Bob lays on the insults thick and heavy. KO is either a liar or “deeply, profoundly, defiantly stupid.” Or perhaps both! The proof is all presented above. Or not.
It strkes me that the most tasteless thing about Laura Flanders’ joke is the way that Bob presents it….twice.
This whole post seems to turn on Pseudo-Howler Law, which holds that KO is a dishonest, woman-hating dumbass.
THE CONCLUSION
Glass houses Bob. Glass houses.
Bob may be 100% correct about KO. I just don’t know. I have never really watched cable news (except at the gym) or even broadcast news. I’ve seen a few righteous KO snippets on the YouTubes but I wouldn’t be surprised if he had his faults. So I’m basically not trying to defend KO as much as I am trying to understand exactly what Bob is trying to accomplish with this post that couldn’t more effectively been said in a quarter of the words (basically by removing all the name calling). Let me give it a whirl. KO had a show about Bristol Palin’s baby today and her relationship with her mother. Why is this bullshit on my teevee?
GS- is the formatting on this post the way you want it to be? Just checking.
Since I am the Bob apologist- he usually watches pieces and links to transcripts when available. If there aren’t transcripts, I think he usually refrains from transcribing the remarks himself. That said, I will read this piece anon.
I will also say that this edition of the Howler left me feeling disappointed. Then again, to the Bob haters, they think he’s just like that every single day, but to me, the house Bob-apologist, I think he’s like that a couple of times a month, max.
Adding to the above, I recoiled at the “snatch” remark.
You Kit Seelye sauce is a bit thin. While certain quotes were made up and extensively paraphrased in the 2000 election, and of course Seelye was an abomination, at some point, in articles she writes when she’s not relying on “some people say” and using actual quotation marks, it isn’t unreasonable to consider some of those statements to exist. Seelye’s crimes include narrative spinning and editorializing.
I’m too stupid/lazy to do the formatting properly. I just hyperlinked the Daily Howler text and left the rest as plain text, thinking that the difference between the two would be enough to distinguish them.
OK, it is a little confusing.
Let’s hug.
Can we get a Mystery Art Bage for the sake of good tribal cheer?
One day we’ll have a mystery art bage but probably not soon. I’m off to Tucson in a couple of days for a holiday!! WooooHOOOO!!!! Mexican Food AhhhOOOGAH!!!!
It would be nice to have access to a transcript of Sarah Palin’s full answer. There’s ample room for spinning of the Palin quote and you know darn well that Bob would have left no stone unturned if this was a negative quote about Gore.
Do the block quotes read better?
Part of the reason I’m suspicious of the KS article is that Palin’s quote sounds more like a response to a question about “intelligent design” than sex education.
Actually I think this is a place maybe where we’re not subconciously aware that the bar has totally been lowered. I woke up this morning thinking that the KO piece made him look like a complete clown. The only thing being covered here were the statements of a teenager to be used to gotcha her mom about some policy that would never otherwise be discussed on the show. I think Bob’s point is valid but in a way he didn’t make it explicit because it is the same point he’s been making for 10 years. He should have said “why is this even being covered? This is Jr. High rhetoric and gotcha at its worst. Everything KO says here is equivocal. We don’t have to take Bob’s word for it here, the point is can we take KO’s word for it? The answer is a resounding no.
We can debate the merits of the post that Somerby SHOULD have written but didn’t. In fact at the very end of my post, I adopted an Atrios voice and did just that.
Unfortunately Somerby didn’t write that post. He wrote a post attacking KO personally and the factual merits of the show. Sommerby’s post was filled with name calling, and very weak and largely unsubstantiated factual arguments. It’s telling that Somerby can’t meet the bar that he himself has set for others. In this case I BELIEVE that Somerby is blinded by his distaste for KO and lost the plot.
I did read some more recent DH posts about the earmarks. They were much more tolerable. Perhaps because he wasn’t attacking liebruls but also perhaps because they weren’t filled with assholery.
Gregor, you claim you never watch KO, but Bob SOMERBY does almost every night. I think we’re a little more immune to KO because his show is like an average blog. He talks about the same stuff we read about all day. The question is are we inured to the fact that a lot of the stuff we read all day is useless bullshit and shouldn’t be talked about on TV. I submit that the entire topic of Bristol Palin an reporting her comments as a cheap shot against Palin, regardless of how delicious the irony may be for those scoring at home does not a professional news program make. So the more I’m thinking about it, the only thing I agree with you on is the shrill, I think the underlying points are all valid and even self-evident.
Enough of this seriouspants, I gotta break a scoop about BG and Chuck Todd.
They’ve been caught peeling grapefruit together?
So based on Somerby’s standards for others you think this was an appropriate post?
I can’t say that I 100% think that, but media vs. media critic are two different things. And I’m not convinced he didn’t show his work, I think he’s made a convincing case that Olbermann doesn’t show his.
Also, BG AND CHUCK TODD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BG is not afraid of the Grapefruit Chupacabra?
~
Not angry just perplexed…..
In the cases that I pointed out where did Somerby show his work? Somerby stated that KO was misrepresenting quotes by SP and BP but didn’t provide the full quote so that we could judge for ourselves. Somerby indicated that KO called SP stupid but he presented no proof that KO said that. Somerby most likely flubbed his first bit evidence that SP didn’t change her mind about sex ed as a result of BP’s pregnancy. Somerby then interprets a six word quote from a Kit Seeyle as an indication that Sarah Palin didn’t support abstinence only education. This was done in spite of the fact that Sarah Palin had only weeks prior indicated that she didn’t support “explicit” sex education. This was also done in spite of the fact that the journalist who interpreted and contextualized the Sarah Palin quote has been criticized at length by Somerby for flubbing quotes and context.
Why on earth wouldn’t Somerby’s rules apply to Somerby himself? Why should we trust his criticism when he himself violates the the basic tenents of his criticism? He warns us constantly about rube playing. But in the Daily Howler club it’s OK to just that? Just trust Bob? It’s OK for Somerby to criticize without substantiation but not KO? This all seems very hypocritical to me.
If Bob’s point is why is this BS on my TV why didn’t he just say that? Why do we need dozens of sentences filled with name calling to say just that?
This particular post Bob may have used shorthand- shorthand for all the other posts where he has documented various things. Furthermore, you can watch the clip itself. Does Keith seem neutral about Sarah Palin and her intelligence? Does he seem objective or snide? Bob is certainly being extremely snide, but Bob is not the media. Read The Howler for the week around the post you looked at.
Additionally, Bob is parsing more finely than you- I think he is drawing a distinction between whether Palin believes the programs “work” versus whether should would support additional sex education beyond abstinence. These are two different things and it looks like Keith is conflating them.
Hypocrisy is not the end of every argument. BUT I am hurt that The Howler is what drags Gregor Samsa up from the Antipodes and not several other delights that 3B offers impolite society.
Okay, Gregor, I will take a real look at this maybe tonight. After my BG stuffs.
I think Sarah Palin is a dope, myself.
Is this an unserious opinion, or else not relevant to a decision regarding which ticket to support?
Also, here is a youtube to explain my current thinking on this matter.
~
That’s the weird thing about this whole argument.
1) I actually think that SP isn’t the brightest and also that she’s a hypocrite.
2) I also think that KO has not fully vetted his “facts” regarding SP.
3) I believe that BS lets his personal dislike of KO get in the way of valid criticism.
4) I believe that BS is being a royal pr*ck in this episode of DH.
5) I believe that this whole subject shouldn’t be on my TV.
All very uncivil and unsubstantiated….
Also if we are to consider the context of all DH posts regarding KO’s treatment of SP then we should also consider the context of all KO’s discussions of SP.
I refuse to believe that Sink Lettuce and Snacktators are bullshit that shouldn’t be on my tv….
Sorry. My serious pants are in tatters today.
My brainz been splattered all over…Manhattan.
Is there any evidence that SP is a hypocrite? We enjoy the irony of someone who is likely/does have shitty views on sex education having a daughter that gets knocked up, but where is the actual hypocrisy? If SP did change her stance on the issue due to her daughter getting knocked up, again, how does this make her a hypocrite? If SP’s believes that kids shouldn’t have sex but they do, how is she a hypocrite? Even if she herself had teenage unmarried sex, but later in life decided that wasn’t a good idea, again, she might not necessarily be a hypocrite. If she believes that abstinence only education is the most effective form of sex ed, and her daughter gets knocked up, she’s still not a hypocrite. She’s not even a hypocrite if she’s telling people to tell their kids not to have sex while her kid is having sex- as long as she told her kid not to have sex. I think this is what makes Keith O’s argument that SP might be a hypocrite kind of ridiculous. There is almost no way to show that she is a hypocrite. The argument is actually dumb on its face. Irony and hypocrisy are not the same thing. I am possibly being incredibly dense here and I welcome the eating of my brain by ZRM.
Except that they’ve already been splattered.
This BG exposé will be earth shattering.
I always hate these dictionary based/semantical arguments but here it goes. Expressing “false beliefs and opinions in order to conceal one’s real feelings or motives is hypocrisy.” Changing your pulbic views on something for political expediency is hypocrisy.
Sarah Palin says she’s against “explicit” sex education in response to the conservative Eagle Forum. A few weeks later she allegedly (according to Kit Seeyle) says she’s for sex education in a statewide public debate forum with presumably a more moderate audience. Either feeble minded or hypocritical…you choose.
Regarding her daughter’s pregnancy you could possibly argue that SP saw the error of her ways and changed her mind. Not hypocrisy.
Or you could argue that SP changed her public views because she needed the political cover. Hypocrisy.
Did you know that “flagitious” is a word? You learn something new every day.
And it’s a cool word too! Somerby’s post was flagitious!
Are the kids afraid that PP and I are going to break up? Trying to add a little levity? Don’t worry we’re solid. ROCK SOLID!
I think you both need to share a Top Gun cake, to prove it to us.
The custody battle could be fierce. I get Kathleen and Mandos!
Here’s where I see SP as a hypocrite.
She loudly and fervently mouths the patriarchal, anti-sex, anti woman attitudes toward sex education and premarital sex and out of wedlock motherhood. Much of this has to do with stigmatizing and vilifying the bad girls who ‘dress and act slutty’.
But when it comes to her own daughter, she actually provides some level of support and love for her. Also, the loudmouth patriarchal religious wing of the RepParty is notably silent on the whole debacle, when they exulted in pointing fingers at the Octomom and other, non-political single mothers. One rule for the Rulers, one for the plebes, and even in a fake Democracy that seems to be hypocrisy.
The attempted shotgun weddding thing is another level of hypocrisy. During the election, it was a blessed event, and after the loss, it became an also ran where Levi hit the ground running as soon as the cameras were off.
Found my serious pantaloons. Heavy on the ‘Loon’.
Pinko will have to fight you because that will increase his support payments.
I don’t need a lot of support with half an ass.
The wedding business of course. But the other side of the coin here is KO doing typical misogynist “mom shaming.” Also, 3B does not endorse the word “Octomom.”
I also don’t remember Palin stigmatizing “slutty” girls. It wouldn’t surprise me, but I don’t remember that being part of her shtick.
But Gregor, was KO’s point that she changed her view on sex ed’s effectiveness because her daughter was pregnant and THAT is what made her a hypocrite? KO’s argument seemed to be scattershot and sad. We can easily come up with all ways Palin could be a hypocrite, but KO just seemed like he was talking a bunch of crap. Similar to Gregor thinking he’ll get Mandos and Kathleen. Frankly, with NY Law Firm on our side, he’ll be lucky to get PupH!
You just asked for some kind of demo that SP was a hypocrite. I was skipping the KO argument. Mebbe I only have one leg of my Serious Pants on.
I didn’t see KO’s piece, but have no problem thinking it was more snark than reporting, he does tend that way. I would guess KO was just engaging in some triumphalist bashing; I confess I have done so occasionally. KO does need to work on his misogyny, although he’s not as bad as Bill Maher. Faint praise indeed; Strange Bedfellows, I guess.
Mebbe Palin doesn’t directly stigmatize the Bad Girls as such, but through support of the Anti-Sex Youth and destroying funding for sex ed, she she certainly works toward the same aims as the full throated stigmatizers. And while the blatant use of her baby and daughter as political props may not be hypocrisy per se, in what world does a political figure get to claim Family Values while using their children as political pawns? It seems the Repubs always try to get mileage out of their kids (see Bush, Jenna; Cheney, Mary….) while more often liberals try to provide some kind of protection for their spawn.
If it suffices, I felt guilty for using the octo-word, but thought it worked as shorthand. Zombie sorry.
Plus, did you hear about Blue Girl?
Palin is execrable. I was only relating my comments to the lack of any argument from KO, who was doing exactly what you say he might have been, and what Somerby was hammering him for albeit inefficiently.
I heard Blue Girl had gone Chuck Todd. Also I also heard that something about a kajillion babies!!!!!
OK.
I still like watching KO though, and a little snark to take down self-important assholes is OK by me. Olbermann does view himself as more entertainment than news, doesn’t he? He lets Maddow bring the journalismo.
I mean, it’s kind of like expecting Sadly, No to attend WH press confabs.
But Bob has a perfect right to pull the same act on Olbermann. Don’t see a prob with it, although I see where maybe Bob’s usefulness is waning. Mebbe he’s not happy about that.
It must be hard to shamble in serious pants.
~
Also, 3B does not endorse the word “Octomom.”
Would 3B change their stance if Octomom was actually half-octopus, half-mom?
you know it thunder.
I usually must resort to lurching.
ZRM- the thing is if we only have Sadly, No and nobody that ever just does the straight man work- we are screwed. And I would say that you usually get a more sophisticated analysis out of SN! than Olbermann. The point is if we settle for only having “entertainment” who are we to expect to have news or analysis that can be taken seriously? If we don’t ask it of anyone- and allow an incredibly low bar for Maddow, what are the chances that she won’t end up the exact same place as Olbermann. Let the Daily Show be the Daily Show- Maddow can be smart and edgy without compromising, but does she?
I’m all for smart and edgy wherever we can get it. But the history of media in this country shows that there is no mass-market audience for it. Where do the Mekons get airplay? They are smart and edgy as all get out, as well as being citrus-friendly.
SN has a big Scrabble box o words to throw up on the page, and they often do. I dearly wish there was a media outlet that did that kind of thing, but there isn’t.
TV news and ‘News’ are built around Short Attention Span Theater.
There are at least a few who yell, once in a while, about the King’s lack of pants, and I don’t mind trying to push them to be more trenchant and truthful about the size of his pee-pee. But when they fall short because of deadlines, or poor writing, or indigestion, I also reserve the right to enjoy a good old fashioned slap fight.
Maddow is maybe another post. Do we need Ana Marie Cox every night? And if so, why isn’t she doing more buttsecks jokes?
I think you both need to share a Top Gun cake
Am I the only one this sounds dirty to?
I would like to point out that Countdown is WAY behind SN in poop jokes….
“But Bob has a perfect right to pull the same act on Olbermann.”
While Bob has the right to do that it is the very definition of hypocrisy. If it’s OK for BS it should be OK for KO.
I was only relating my comments to the lack of any argument from KO
So you disagree with KO’s views and or methods but yet you excuse BS for doing essentially the same thing? If you’re going to offer BS context I would expect that the same should be extended to KO. BS is in a much stronger position in that his critcism is written and he set the standards that he expects others to live up to.
This begs a larger question. To what standard should five or ten minute segments on opinion shows live up to? In that format is it practical to live up to the technical standards that BS sets? It seems that the whole format would die and perhaps that’s a good thing? But of course that isn’t the focus of Somerby’s post the focus is his dislike of KO.
Gregor is Wrong™ in the above.
And I denounce his naked attempts to lay the groundwork for a custody battle over the Kitty Kattwood painting and banana car.
I declare victory™.
I’ve always thought that the banana car was totally awesome™®©.
~
Also.
Part of the problem with our media elite is they’re a bunch of rich folks working for super rich folks.
America remains a center-right nation—a fact that a President Obama would forget at his peril.
Jon Meacham is a tool-a fact I won’t forget.
~
Kitty Kattwood rides a banana bicycle not a car. She’s very conscientious.
While we here at The Daily Juicer find Rachel Maddow quite peachy, we were bruised by her rotten repeating of the Washington Post’s faulty reporting about the Oguava Administration. We had already peeled away the Post story to reveal its sour center. But Maddow’s cultivation of the Post’s logic proves a point we have long made about your Washington press corps: it only takes one bad seed to make a tree of spoiled apples.
Do you have any plans to post an interview with Ms. Kattwood, Gregor?
I can’t be the only one who would like to read her views on nuclear non-proliferation, global warming, and eating mousies.
~
Her tales of adventure and derring-do as an international Chatte of mystery too also.
She’s very mysterious.
I’ve read that she loves the streets and lives for danger.
~
We’ll see what the mean streets of Tucson have to say next week.
Let the debate begin!
I started this post a long time ago but pretty much gave up on it as laziness consumed and as the moment passed.
Going back to the G.S. original post, I have the exact same problem. A response to Bob S. that’s been sitting on ice so long as I attempt its perfection that I ponder which is worse: finishing/publishing, or pretending I never thought about it.
~
Do It™
Yeah, Thunderpants, BRING IT™.
Make Babies and Jesuses cry.