I'm not a fan of Alex Jones, so...of course...I found this video endlessly entertaining:
Once again, the people are left in the position of standing up to the charlatans in media.
Showing posts with label Media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Media. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 1, 2013
Thursday, March 14, 2013
@RuthMarcus, Villagers and the evolution of media bull@#$%...
My distaste for Ruth Marcus goes back a while. So I guess I shouldn't have been completely surprised when yet again decided to act as the Chief Villager for a Newspaper run by nothing but Villagers when she wrote her latest (cough-cough) column.
After listing through some of the nasty comments House GOPers were tweeting as the President was speaking to them about reaching a Budget Deal, she quoted the President calmly assessing the situation with George Stephanopoulos:
One would think after all the Filibustering and insults (some of them actually racist) that have been hurled at this President from the start of his administration, a columnist might react with shock and surprise that the sitting President managed to keep his cool.
Instead, Ruth Marcus offered this:
Excuse me, but...I did not think it was anatomically possible for one's head to get that far up one's...--never mind.
I don't know how to tell Journalists this, because...I really thought they would have covered it in Journalism school, but...it's not your job to balance the argument.
I know you think that's your job. But let's be clear about what your job really is.
Your job is to present both sides of a story...
Your job is not necessarily to lend them equal weight, particularly when they don't deserve it.
Again, you don't elevate both sides into equality. We don't need you to do that. In fact, it's a really bad idea if you do do that.
If you're a columnist, as Ruth Marcus is, this is even more tricky. Why? Because, a columnist offers nothing but opinion. They don't do any actual reporting. They don't go digging around for facts anymore...they've been excused from that particular activity. In fact, they are paid a substantial salary to say only what they think. Even if what they think has no basis in reality, as Ruth Marcus clearly demonstrated today.
One would think that some measure of journalistic integrity would matter in a circumstance like this, but again...you'd be wrong. The Washington Post is more than capable of publishing utter complete bull@#$% so long as it fills column inches. After all they employ Jennifer Rubin, Marc Thiessen, Robert Samuelson, Richard Cohen...and Ruth Marcus.
(Hey, at least Ezra Klein -- and I know me some Liberals who hate him for some reason -- no idea why -- does actual work to preparing his pieces.)
One would think it would matter to the folks at the Washington Post that their own readers can smell this line of crap a mile off, but we don't matter of the folks at the Washington Post. Ruth Marcus has proved...once again...that the Villagers are talking only to other Villagers.
Which could explain why most newspapers are in trouble.
We need Newspapers and Magazines and Media in general, advocating for their audience, and not entertaining their damn selves.
For example...if someone...say like the President...presents something that is backed in fact, and his opposition presents something that is cloaked in bull@#$%...we kinda need Media to call out the bull@#$%.
But they're not.
They used to. But they're not.
I mean it happens...sometimes, but it sure as hell didn't happen today with Ruth Marcus.
Let me quote something a columnist said not too long ago:
That was from August 10, 2010. My goodness who wrote such a prescient piece?
C'mon, this is easy. This was Ruth Marcus...in a piece backing Robert Gibbs when he called out the Professional Left.
So what happened?
Apparently, Ruth Marcus...still employed by the Washington Post...has lost the ability...to count.
Ruth Marcus got lazy. She and the paper needed column inches to fill, and bull@#$% magically transpired.
When you say the President isn't showing leadership after showing in just a few short paragraphs that there's no one who's willing to be lead, we do wonder why the President is to blame, and not the Congress. And if you can't make that elementary of a call, it calls into question your ability to observe things...or any thing, for that matter.
I mean, I don't meant to tell Ruth Marcus in particular how to do her job, but I figured someone ought to.
After listing through some of the nasty comments House GOPers were tweeting as the President was speaking to them about reaching a Budget Deal, she quoted the President calmly assessing the situation with George Stephanopoulos:
Obama: “You know — I think whatever I’m for, it’s very hard for a Republican to also be for. I think they always have to be a little bit — you know, maintain some distance.”
One would think after all the Filibustering and insults (some of them actually racist) that have been hurled at this President from the start of his administration, a columnist might react with shock and surprise that the sitting President managed to keep his cool.
Instead, Ruth Marcus offered this:
The president has made this point before, and maybe he’s right. Yet this analysis leaves him in a distinctly unpresidential posture — not leaning in, but holding back.
Excuse me, but...I did not think it was anatomically possible for one's head to get that far up one's...--never mind.
I don't know how to tell Journalists this, because...I really thought they would have covered it in Journalism school, but...it's not your job to balance the argument.
I know you think that's your job. But let's be clear about what your job really is.
Your job is to present both sides of a story...
Your job is not necessarily to lend them equal weight, particularly when they don't deserve it.
Again, you don't elevate both sides into equality. We don't need you to do that. In fact, it's a really bad idea if you do do that.
If you're a columnist, as Ruth Marcus is, this is even more tricky. Why? Because, a columnist offers nothing but opinion. They don't do any actual reporting. They don't go digging around for facts anymore...they've been excused from that particular activity. In fact, they are paid a substantial salary to say only what they think. Even if what they think has no basis in reality, as Ruth Marcus clearly demonstrated today.
One would think that some measure of journalistic integrity would matter in a circumstance like this, but again...you'd be wrong. The Washington Post is more than capable of publishing utter complete bull@#$% so long as it fills column inches. After all they employ Jennifer Rubin, Marc Thiessen, Robert Samuelson, Richard Cohen...and Ruth Marcus.
(Hey, at least Ezra Klein -- and I know me some Liberals who hate him for some reason -- no idea why -- does actual work to preparing his pieces.)
One would think it would matter to the folks at the Washington Post that their own readers can smell this line of crap a mile off, but we don't matter of the folks at the Washington Post. Ruth Marcus has proved...once again...that the Villagers are talking only to other Villagers.
Which could explain why most newspapers are in trouble.
We need Newspapers and Magazines and Media in general, advocating for their audience, and not entertaining their damn selves.
For example...if someone...say like the President...presents something that is backed in fact, and his opposition presents something that is cloaked in bull@#$%...we kinda need Media to call out the bull@#$%.
But they're not.
They used to. But they're not.
I mean it happens...sometimes, but it sure as hell didn't happen today with Ruth Marcus.
Let me quote something a columnist said not too long ago:
Excuse me, but can these people not count to 60? Have they somehow failed to notice that Mitch McConnell and John Boehner have not exactly been playing nice? That while the left laments Obama's minor deviations from party orthodoxy, the right has been portraying him, with some success, as an out-of-control socialist?
That was from August 10, 2010. My goodness who wrote such a prescient piece?
C'mon, this is easy. This was Ruth Marcus...in a piece backing Robert Gibbs when he called out the Professional Left.
So what happened?
Apparently, Ruth Marcus...still employed by the Washington Post...has lost the ability...to count.
Ruth Marcus got lazy. She and the paper needed column inches to fill, and bull@#$% magically transpired.
When you say the President isn't showing leadership after showing in just a few short paragraphs that there's no one who's willing to be lead, we do wonder why the President is to blame, and not the Congress. And if you can't make that elementary of a call, it calls into question your ability to observe things...or any thing, for that matter.
I mean, I don't meant to tell Ruth Marcus in particular how to do her job, but I figured someone ought to.
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Watch in amazement as @ABC News commits Journalistic malpractice right before your very eyes (VIDEO)
This is one of those stories that seems designed and destined to produce mixed feelings in me. In the end, though, you'll see my feelings are not that mixed.
On the one hand, it's freakin' Ashley Judd. Big time, actual Movie Star, talking about how she schleps it, like the rest of us Volunteers, hoofing it from door to door on behalf the President in freaking Tennessee! For that alone, she deserves major, big-time kudos.
But she's the only one who deserves kudos. ABC News, on the other hand...
Honest to God, WTF?? There is a speech is being made by Former Governor Ted Strickland, and he's absolutely KILLING IT. This is what would be called, you know...actual news...something usually covered by something called a News Organization, or in the case of ABC News, an Organization with "News" in its name. But no, ABC News elects to skip actual news, and talk to the Movie Star.
Epic...freakin'...fail.
What amuses me so much, is that Journalists seem to get really, really peeved when they see how much (at times) the public truly hates them. What they never seem to understand is that this is the stuff that makes us hate them.
Thursday, August 9, 2012
Robert Samuelson...stopped clock.
It should come as no surprise that I can't stand the Washington Post's (cough-cough) Economics Columnist, Robert Samuelson...mostly because I don't think he knows much about Economics.
Let's see here's me blasting him (however briefly) for saying the Stimulus wouldn't work. Here's me saying outright Krugman's smarter than he is (no surprise, only one of them has a Nobel Prize). Here's me saying that as long as Samuelson continues to work there, the Washington Post will remain a substandard newspaper.
But you know what they say, a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Thus, I present to you...Robert Samuelson...stopped clock:
...but when someone as idiotic, biased and right-winged as Samuelson thinks Mitt Romney is out of touch, boy o' boy...Mitt Romney is out of touch.
Let's see here's me blasting him (however briefly) for saying the Stimulus wouldn't work. Here's me saying outright Krugman's smarter than he is (no surprise, only one of them has a Nobel Prize). Here's me saying that as long as Samuelson continues to work there, the Washington Post will remain a substandard newspaper.
But you know what they say, a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Thus, I present to you...Robert Samuelson...stopped clock:
There seems to be a Democratic mole inside Mitt Romney’s campaign. Could it be Romney himself? Well, of course not. But considering the campaign’s behavior, it might just as well be. President Obama and his allies have cast Romney as a wealthy fat cat who’s out of touch with everyday Americans and who would use his presidency to enrich the already rich. To counter this damning image, the last thing you’d expect Romney to do is embrace a tax plan favoring the super-rich.Let's get one thing straight, I still think Samuelson's an idiot, and I'd still fire him yesterday for being fundamentally antithetical to his job description (a writer about the Economy who knows nothing about the economy)...
Which is exactly what he has done.
After examining Romney’s proposal, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center concluded that households with incomes exceeding $200,000 would receive tax cuts; meanwhile, taxes would rise for the other 95 percent of the population. Taxpayers making more than $1 million would receive an average cut of $87,000; those making less than $200,000 would pay an average of $500 more. Romney denies that he would raise taxes on the middle class but has provided no evidence that the Tax Policy Center’s analysis is wrong.
What can he be thinking?
...but when someone as idiotic, biased and right-winged as Samuelson thinks Mitt Romney is out of touch, boy o' boy...Mitt Romney is out of touch.
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
"Tampered"
Back to business as normal...and what do you know? Mittens came out with another ad...and he lied in it...
...again.
...again.
"The Choice" - Obama For America TV Ad (VIDEO)
"Over the next four months you have a choice to make. Not just between two political parties or even two people. It's a choice between two very different plans for our country.
Governor Romney's plan would cut taxes for the folks at the very top, roll back regulations on big banks, and he says that if we do our economy will grow and everyone will benefit.
But you know what? We tried that top-down approach. It's what caused the mess in the first place.
I believe the only way to create an economy built to last is to strengthen the middle class. Asking the wealthy to pay a little more so we can pay down our debt in a balanced way. So that we can afford to invest in education, manufacturing, and homegrown American energy for good middle class jobs. Sometimes politics can seem very small. But the choice you face, it couldn't be bigger."
Friday, May 11, 2012
For the record, @msnbc, you're not paying @tamronhall NEARLY enough (VIDEO)
Give her a raise, now. Just for this:
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Spencer Ackerman (@attackerman) blasts the Beltway Culture (VIDEO)
Wow.
Traffic? Seriously, dude? Have you been to L.A.??
Also, as a Native D.C.er, as in born and raised in D.C., I have to admit, I've ALWAYS called it a Subway. "Hey, Malcolm...what's the Metro?" "Well, that's our Subway System." I don't know what else you'd call it.
Traffic? Seriously, dude? Have you been to L.A.??
Also, as a Native D.C.er, as in born and raised in D.C., I have to admit, I've ALWAYS called it a Subway. "Hey, Malcolm...what's the Metro?" "Well, that's our Subway System." I don't know what else you'd call it.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Umm, is there a way @MSNBC can force Chris Matthews to watch his own Network and learn somethin'? (VIDEO)
First Chris Matthews had on E.J. Dionne and Susan Milligan, and barely let Susan get in a word in edgewise:
And then Lawrence O'Donnell had Mark Shields on to pontificate just a little bit more:
And yes, despite Lawrence's admonition, Mark Shields went on and on.
Unanswered was the question, in both segments was this: Why should the Catholic Church be able to enforce Catholic Dogma on it's employees who work for Catholic Organization who are not Catholic.
Instead all we heard was the alleged oppression being put upon the Church, which...if you remember history, is just a damn joke.
Another way to ask the question is: Why should the Catholic Church control the sex lives of Non-Catholic, or anyone else for that matter?
Or how about this one: Mad as I am about the Catholic Sex Scandal, I don't want to pay for Father Donovan's Heart Medication. Can I have a exemption, too? Or is it more important that we have a Civilization here, and pay for each other's stuff...even if we don't use it?
But finally buried in the din...was Rachel Maddow...and Rachel sounding uber-reasonable, and quiet, underhandedly scolding her journalistic colleages (namely Shields and Matthews).
And she did it again, the next night:
And Lawrence had an actual lawyer on (the legendary David Boies) to explain why the contretemps over the Birth Control issue was total bullshit:
Basically, I want two things from Chris Matthews...but expect only one.
It'd be really nice if stop hawking his book on Jack Kennedy every ten seconds, but hey a fella can dream, can't he?
But what I really expect is for Chris Matthews to stop using MSNBC as a personal platform to provide cover for the Church, of which he and I are members. He has not provided an impartial platform and instead used the network to flog and issue that is 110% bullshit.
Ethics, Chris. I thought they were important to Catholics. Maybe that's just lip service.
(Actually, as a Catholic, and knowing our history...yeah, it's lip service.)
And then Lawrence O'Donnell had Mark Shields on to pontificate just a little bit more:
And yes, despite Lawrence's admonition, Mark Shields went on and on.
Unanswered was the question, in both segments was this: Why should the Catholic Church be able to enforce Catholic Dogma on it's employees who work for Catholic Organization who are not Catholic.
Instead all we heard was the alleged oppression being put upon the Church, which...if you remember history, is just a damn joke.
Another way to ask the question is: Why should the Catholic Church control the sex lives of Non-Catholic, or anyone else for that matter?
Or how about this one: Mad as I am about the Catholic Sex Scandal, I don't want to pay for Father Donovan's Heart Medication. Can I have a exemption, too? Or is it more important that we have a Civilization here, and pay for each other's stuff...even if we don't use it?
But finally buried in the din...was Rachel Maddow...and Rachel sounding uber-reasonable, and quiet, underhandedly scolding her journalistic colleages (namely Shields and Matthews).
And she did it again, the next night:
And Lawrence had an actual lawyer on (the legendary David Boies) to explain why the contretemps over the Birth Control issue was total bullshit:
Basically, I want two things from Chris Matthews...but expect only one.
It'd be really nice if stop hawking his book on Jack Kennedy every ten seconds, but hey a fella can dream, can't he?
But what I really expect is for Chris Matthews to stop using MSNBC as a personal platform to provide cover for the Church, of which he and I are members. He has not provided an impartial platform and instead used the network to flog and issue that is 110% bullshit.
Ethics, Chris. I thought they were important to Catholics. Maybe that's just lip service.
(Actually, as a Catholic, and knowing our history...yeah, it's lip service.)
Monday, February 6, 2012
Did Clint Eastwood just make a campaign ad for the President? (VIDEO)
First off, brilliant ad. But then Chrysler has been making brilliant stuff since their comeback.
Jamelle Bouie from the American Prospect:
Jamelle Bouie from the American Prospect:
[A]s befitting a car commercial, is that it focuses on the revitalization of Detroit as a template for pushing the country forward. This echoes language the president used in his State of the Union last month:
Chrysler has grown faster in the U.S. than any major car company. Ford is investing billions in U.S. plants and factories. And together, the entire industry added nearly 160,000 jobs.
We bet on American workers. We bet on American ingenuity. And tonight, the American auto industry is back.
Not only should you expect to hear more like this as the year continues, but don’t be surprised if the Obama campaign’s positive advertisements look and sound a lot like Chrysler’s.
Monday, January 30, 2012
Friday, January 27, 2012
Sunday, January 22, 2012
I respect the heck out of @chucktodd, he needs to understand why we trust The Daily Show more than Cable News... (VIDEO)
Is it just possible that after the Bush years, after watching the media be willing accomplices in the march to war, after watching Editorial decisions being made with the stockholders more in mind than the audience, after watching how a Reporters access matters more to them than the story they're trying to tell me, is it any wonder why we trust the Daily Show more than we do most reporters?
I wish Chuck Todd got it, because this is some weak-ass sauce:
Chuck, it's simple. It's a matter of trust, and a lot of your colleagues (especially your colleagues at Fox News) have made it very hard to trust Journalism. We see too much manipulation of journalists, and journalist who are too-willing-to-be manipulated.
I am learning more from the Daily Show and the Colbert Report than I am from the Nightly News. I am getting more actual NEWS CONTENT from them. They're not wasting my time. They're not just giving me a giggle. They are educating me, and they're doing a better job than Free Broadcast TV News, and they're doing a HELL of a lot better than Cable News.
I wish Chuck Todd got it, because this is some weak-ass sauce:
Chuck, it's simple. It's a matter of trust, and a lot of your colleagues (especially your colleagues at Fox News) have made it very hard to trust Journalism. We see too much manipulation of journalists, and journalist who are too-willing-to-be manipulated.
I am learning more from the Daily Show and the Colbert Report than I am from the Nightly News. I am getting more actual NEWS CONTENT from them. They're not wasting my time. They're not just giving me a giggle. They are educating me, and they're doing a better job than Free Broadcast TV News, and they're doing a HELL of a lot better than Cable News.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
The first Obama Campaign Ad, in case you missed it (VIDEO)
Running now in six swing states. Take THAT Turd Blossom!
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
P.R. in Action! Jodi Kantor gives the exact same interview on two different shows! (VIDEO)
Watch, gentle reader, with amazement as Jodi Kantor goes onto two different shows, with two different tempraments, and two different hosts...only to give the exact same interview:
First Lawrence O'Donnell:
And then Jon Stewart:
Remember, in the end, both shows are right. Ms. Kantor never called the First Lady and Angry Black woman in her book. That is important to clear up. Of course, that the first stories to leak out from the book were about arguments did not help.
But my main problem with the book, isn't the reporting, but the fact that Kantor in some parts of the book she used a third person, novelistic, inner monologue to have the First Lady describe her actions and thoughts, when she (ahem) hadn't interviewed the First Lady. That, in my book, is more than a little bullshitty. If Kantor had stuck to straight reporting, and just told what she learn from Aides and people close to Michelle, I would have zero problems with this book.
Then again, there would be zero controversy for her P.R. people to market, and thus zero reason to go on with Lawrence and Stew-Beef!
First Lawrence O'Donnell:
And then Jon Stewart:
Remember, in the end, both shows are right. Ms. Kantor never called the First Lady and Angry Black woman in her book. That is important to clear up. Of course, that the first stories to leak out from the book were about arguments did not help.
But my main problem with the book, isn't the reporting, but the fact that Kantor in some parts of the book she used a third person, novelistic, inner monologue to have the First Lady describe her actions and thoughts, when she (ahem) hadn't interviewed the First Lady. That, in my book, is more than a little bullshitty. If Kantor had stuck to straight reporting, and just told what she learn from Aides and people close to Michelle, I would have zero problems with this book.
Then again, there would be zero controversy for her P.R. people to market, and thus zero reason to go on with Lawrence and Stew-Beef!
Monday, October 3, 2011
New York Observer: How Jesse LaGreca kicked Fox's ass, even though they didn't show it on-air (VIDEO)
From the New York Observer:
Even if Geraldo Rivera was at the Zuccotti Park yesterday, Fox News has generally been a tad dismissive of the Occupy Wall Street movement. Foxnews.com (as of this writing) has no coverage of this national event on their front page stories. (Hard to imagine for a network that was so gung-ho about the Tea Party!) Red Eye‘s Bill Schulz went out to try to “prank” the protesters. Bill O’Reilly sent a producer minion out with the same mission: to belittle OWS’s cause by cutting up interviews to make people sound stupid.
Well, here is an interview that Fox News filmed, but doesn’t want you to see. The segment was shot on Wednesday for Greta van Susteren‘s show, (though it looks like the same producer from this O’Reilly segment questioning Michael Moore‘s anti-capitalist agenda) though the decision was made to leave it on the cutting room floor. The reason should be obvious pretty quickly.
The speaker giving Fox News the buisness is Jesse LaGreca, a vocal member of the Occupy Wall Street protests. This video comes courtesy of Kyle Christopher from OccupyWallSt.org‘s media team.
Now, no news organization is under obligation to air every interview they’ve filmed, especially when it makes them look bad. But you’d think that a “Fair and Balanced” network (that tells an interviewee that they are here to give them fair coverage to get any message they’d like to get out) would try to include at least a couple of opposing viewpoints to Mr. Shulz’s smarmy jokes or O’Reilly’s “infiltration” of the camp.
The ball is in your court, Fox.
Somebody book this guy on Lawrence tonight, or at least Olbermann or Rachel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)