Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jan 22, 2010 9:39:38 GMT -5
Olbermann's our O'Reilly. No, can't go with that. All due respect, this comparison can only be made if you never watch O'Reilly. He often gives the President credit for accomplishments and discusses topics with people on the other side. Olbermann is 100% partisan and off the rails. A more appropriate comparison would be Hannity. Fair enough. It would not surprise me at all to see a huge boost in MSNBC's ratings this week. Every conservative blog I've read has mentioned how many of the bloggers, etc. were tuning into MSNBC just for the schadenfreude of it. Anyway, sorry for the digression. We may now return to the topic of how the evil, faceless corporations will turn this nation into Rollerball (the James Caan version, not that crappy Chris Klein-Jean Reno abomination) within a generation or sooner. Not that it matters because those same evil faceless corporations will completely ignore the global warming apocalyptic crisis and we'll all be dead by starvation, drowning or executed by The Humungus within a generation or sooner.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Jan 22, 2010 10:08:31 GMT -5
Olbermann is what O'Reilly used to be. To give credit where it's due, O'Reilly's calmed down and moderated a lot recently. It seemed to start when Beck showed up at Fox.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,759
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Jan 22, 2010 10:11:53 GMT -5
I'll watch all of these shows as infotainment. None have a monopoly on the truth and none frankly reaches their potential.
Bill O'Reilly is all about, well, Bill O'Reilly. I think his show is marginally better these days if for no other reasons that the other competition on Fox is either predictable (Hannity) or wacky (Beck). O'Reilly knows that being a little contrarian gets attention at Fox (e.g., Shepard Smith) and since he's the big dog on the ratings, he's got the luxury to challenge conventional wisdom.
Sean Hannity is heir to the Limbaugh empire as Rush continues to morph into the cranky old man in the corner. Limbaugh no longer works out of New York but is secluded in a Florida subdivision for his daily rants and it's every bit a monologue--no guests, no contrary opinions. For his part, Hannity has guests but does not listen to them very often, and does not elevate the dialogue at all.
Glenn Beck is a snake oil salesman. As I noted before, the comparison to movie character Larry (Lonesome) Rhodes is appropriate--he's a morning DJ from Baltimore who discovered the big money as this conspiratorial-conservative "one of us" radio/TV host. If the money was on the left, he'd be Ed Schultz.
Keith Olbermann is a better host than recent shows indicate. He's lost ground to CNN in ratings during the earthquake story and I think this has ramped up his "special comments" against things that are not proportionate. Comparing Chief Justice Roberts to Roger Taney and the Dred Scott case is foolish. I think his shows also become an echo chamber with Richard Wolffe, Howard Fineman, etc. and I think different voices would really be an improvement.
Rachel Maddow is off-the-charts-left but a surprisingly good interviewer and someone who is smart enough to let people answer for themselves. MSNBC tends to style her in a non-threatening way (her off screen appearance is akin to Buddy Holly) and she has a future in the Beltway talk crowd if she chose to do so.
Finally, there's Chris Matthews, who longs for the good old days of political discourse that isn't there anymore. He went to Holy Cross in the mid-1960's, but he would have been quite a character at Georgetown in the era of Clinton and Keating. Of all of these, he seems to enjoy the political subculture a lot more.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Jan 22, 2010 10:15:47 GMT -5
Finally, there's Chris Matthews, who longs for the good old days of political discourse that isn't there anymore. He went to Holy Cross in the mid-1960's, but he would have been quite a character at Georgetown in the era of Clinton and Keating. Of all of these, he seems to enjoy the political subculture a lot more. Yeah, I think everyone knows that Chris Matthews enjoys the political subculture more. It just gets him all tingly
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jan 22, 2010 10:18:08 GMT -5
I'll watch all of these shows as infotainment. None have a monopoly on the truth and none frankly reaches their potential. Bill O'Reilly is all about, well, Bill O'Reilly. I think his show is marginally better these days if for no other reasons that the other competition on Fox is either predictable (Hannity) or wacky (Beck). O'Reilly knows that being a little contrarian gets attention at Fox (e.g., Shepard Smith) and since he's the big dog on the ratings, he's got the luxury to challenge conventional wisdom. Sean Hannity is heir to the Limbaugh empire as Rush continues to morph into the cranky old man in the corner. Limbaugh no longer works out of New York but is secluded in a Florida subdivision for his daily rants and it's every bit a monologue--no guests, no contrary opinions. For his part, Hannity has guests but does not listen to them very often, and does not elevate the dialogue at all. Glenn Beck is a snake oil salesman. As I noted before, the comparison to movie character Larry (Lonesome) Rhodes is appropriate--he's a morning DJ from Baltimore who discovered the big money as this conspiratorial-conservative "one of us" radio/TV host. If the money was on the left, he'd be Ed Schultz. Keith Olbermann is a better host than recent shows indicate. He's lost ground to CNN in ratings during the earthquake story and I think this has ramped up his "special comments" against things that are not proportionate. Comparing Chief Justice Roberts to Roger Taney and the Dred Scott case is foolish. I think his shows also become an echo chamber with Richard Wolffe, Howard Fineman, etc. and I think different voices would really be an improvement. Rachel Maddow is off-the-charts-left but a surprisingly good interviewer and someone who is smart enough to let people answer for themselves. MSNBC tends to style her in a non-threatening way (her off screen appearance is akin to Buddy Holly) and she has a future in the Beltway talk crowd if she chose to do so. Finally, there's Chris Matthews, who longs for the good old days of political discourse that isn't there anymore. He went to Holy Cross in the mid-1960's, but he would have been quite a character at Georgetown in the era of Clinton and Keating. Of all of these, he seems to enjoy the political subculture a lot more. A complete left of center analysis of things.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,759
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Jan 22, 2010 10:45:54 GMT -5
A complete left of center analysis of things. I think WilsonBlvdHoya just spit up his coffee. I'm nowhere near left of center and would rather listen to George Will than Paul Krugman any day of the week. But I am critical of hosts that play the "conservative" role for ratings and don't have any intellectual foundation to argue their points. Russell Kirk, WFB, George Will, etc. could argue politics and philosophy without resorting to nonsense. Instead, Glenn Beck tells viewers he's discovered secret Communist messages in the art at Rockefeller Center. It's foolishness, and conservatives dserve better.
|
|
|
Post by WilsonBlvdHoya on Jan 22, 2010 11:24:14 GMT -5
hahha nice DFW....
Ed, I'm off to China tomorrow (no, not to get instructions from my PLA overlords (!) but to do business on behalf of a major MNC in the same industry, roughly, as Google) but I CANNOT believe that any reasonable observer would ever characterize DFW as "left of center."
This left-winger does perceive him as a principled moderate as well as a fiscal and social conservative of which the current Democratic party could use a few more!!!
The WSJ has a great article on p. A3 today about how the Dems lost many union households they would normally capture in the recent Mass Senate election. This observer would argue they lost these households because Obama didn't go fast enough on the economy and push through banking and other reforms he's now just getting around to (or bother to stand for much on health care as he outsourced the legislation to Congress and look what he got in return -- not exactly a principled or sturdy leadership stand!).
This administration better start to stand for something soon; it basically wasted a year jerking itself (interesting that the automatic censor deleted "cat"-footing) around instead of attacking problems on the MANDATE it had (a lot bigger mandate than W's 51/49 "mandate" of 2004)....
|
|
rosslynhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,595
|
Post by rosslynhoya on Jan 22, 2010 11:26:54 GMT -5
Anyway, sorry for the digression. We may now return to the topic of how the evil, faceless corporations will turn this nation into Rollerball (the James Caan version, not that crappy Chris Klein-Jean Reno abomination) within a generation or sooner. Not that it matters because those same evil faceless corporations will completely ignore the global warming apocalyptic crisis and we'll all be dead by starvation, drowning or executed by The Humungus within a generation or sooner. The real victims of this decision are the tens of thousands of Washingtonites whose sole purpose in life is to stand between the corporations and the congresspersons and shovel money freely from one to the other without running afoul of campaign finance or bribery laws. They work with the g-ddamn congresspersons so that the corporations don't have to. THEY HAVE PEOPLE SKILLS. They are good at dealing with people. Can't you understand that? What the hell is wrong with you people? The evil faceless corporations can just donate directly to a congressman of their choice now without having to employ a legion of laputian bladder-flappers and all you care about is the coming apocalypse! Are you a Boz or a Bob?
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jan 22, 2010 14:42:52 GMT -5
A complete left of center analysis of things. I think WilsonBlvdHoya just spit up his coffee. I'm nowhere near left of center and would rather listen to George Will than Paul Krugman any day of the week. But I am critical of hosts that play the "conservative" role for ratings and don't have any intellectual foundation to argue their points. Russell Kirk, WFB, George Will, etc. could argue politics and philosophy without resorting to nonsense. Instead, Glenn Beck tells viewers he's discovered secret Communist messages in the art at Rockefeller Center. It's foolishness, and conservatives dserve better. Please note I did not say you were left of center, I said your analysis was left of center. Why? Because you generally dissed those on the right while finding some merit from those on the left. Look at you post and see if you do not agree.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jan 22, 2010 15:19:41 GMT -5
You know what I really miss? Crossfire.
Screw you, Jon Stewart. Everyone applauded you sooooo much when you called Tucker Carlson an a-hole (or was it Bob Novak?), and then the show got cancelled shortly thereafter, but Crossfire was the best political show going and nothing on the airwaves today comes close.
Hannity & Colmes was pretty good, but Colmes was just a little too much of a weenie.
Now, the only place you get panels like Crossfire pretty much is on the Sunday morning shows. And I'm never awake to watch those.
This is why I give Bill O'Reilly -- and yes, he is a complete blowhard, granted -- more credit than many other people do. On just about every show (at least every show I see, I don't watch it every day) he will have a liberal on to debate with him on some issue or another. Yes, he's the host and controls the debate, so it's not perfect, but it's better than most other primetime shows.
Crossfire was excellent. Yes, Jon Stewart, sometimes they acted like children (like you're one to say anything). But they also had a show that debated primarily important issues -- not celebrity nonsense like Fox and MSNBC love to do these days -- and they had two representatives from the conservative and liberal point of view to debate those issues.
It was a great show and Jon Stewart ruined it. Jon Stewart is a dick.
I do like Morning Joe though. Scarborough is almost always completely outnumbered by liberals, but since he's the host, there's never any danger of him not getting his point of view in. Mika is a bit of a waste of space, but she's nice to look at.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,303
|
Post by Cambridge on Jan 22, 2010 15:20:36 GMT -5
I think WilsonBlvdHoya just spit up his coffee. I'm nowhere near left of center and would rather listen to George Will than Paul Krugman any day of the week. But I am critical of hosts that play the "conservative" role for ratings and don't have any intellectual foundation to argue their points. Russell Kirk, WFB, George Will, etc. could argue politics and philosophy without resorting to nonsense. Instead, Glenn Beck tells viewers he's discovered secret Communist messages in the art at Rockefeller Center. It's foolishness, and conservatives dserve better. Please note I did not say you were left of center, I said your analysis was left of center. Why? Because you generally dissed those on the right while finding some merit from those on the left. Look at you post and see if you do not agree. I think you mistake critique of style for one of substance. EDIT - Btw anyone who wants a really interesting look at interviewing and what it means to ask and answer questions should read Chuck Klosterman's new book, Eating the Dinosaur.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,455
|
Post by TC on Jan 22, 2010 15:29:57 GMT -5
EDIT - Btw anyone who wants a really interesting look at interviewing and what it means to ask and answer questions should read Chuck Klosterman's new book, Eating the Dinosaur. Or if you want to know why In Utero is so much different from Nevermind, read Eating the Dinosaur for that too. I thought the David Koresh sympathy was a little stupid though.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jan 22, 2010 15:30:50 GMT -5
Even though Citizens United overrules Austin? Good luck with that. That's my point. Why should I respect this decision anymore than the Court respected Austin? Yes, I know. Because one is still good law and the other is not anymore. But I'm hoping you get my point. Because you're not a Supreme Court justice. They get to decide when to overrule prior holdings. You do not.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,303
|
Post by Cambridge on Jan 22, 2010 15:31:26 GMT -5
EDIT - Btw anyone who wants a really interesting look at interviewing and what it means to ask and answer questions should read Chuck Klosterman's new book, Eating the Dinosaur. Or if you want to know why In Utero is so much different from Nevermind, read Eating the Dinosaur for that too. I thought the David Koresh sympathy was a little stupid though. It was weird, that is certain. I had similar thoughts. After I read it, I heard him talk about it with Bill Simmons and was intrigued, but I haven't gone back to reread it since I heard him talk about it.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jan 22, 2010 15:36:14 GMT -5
"In short, in Scott Brown we have an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, teabagging supporter of violence against woman and against politicians with whom he disagrees. In any other time in our history, this man would have been laughed off the stage as an unqualified and a disaster in the making by the most conservative of conservatives. Instead, the commonwealth of Massachusetts is close to sending this bad joke to the Senate of the United States."
That's just full of pure hate and vitriol. I only occasionally (once every few weeks) stop flipping channels and listen to O'Reilly, Beck, Maddow, Chris Matthews, Hannity, etc. I've never heard any of them spew such venom. Olbermann is on a whole 'nother level. I used to actually tune in to watch his show at the beginning. And I still like him on SNF. But he's gone off the deep end.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,303
|
Post by Cambridge on Jan 22, 2010 16:11:50 GMT -5
"In short, in Scott Brown we have an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, teabagging supporter of violence against woman and against politicians with whom he disagrees. In any other time in our history, this man would have been laughed off the stage as an unqualified and a disaster in the making by the most conservative of conservatives. Instead, the commonwealth of Massachusetts is close to sending this bad joke to the Senate of the United States." That's just full of pure hate and vitriol. I only occasionally (once every few weeks) stop flipping channels and listen to O'Reilly, Beck, Maddow, Chris Matthews, Hannity, etc. I've never heard any of them spew such venom. Olbermann is on a whole 'nother level. I used to actually tune in to watch his show at the beginning. And I still like him on SNF. But he's gone off the deep end. Um, you are aware of what Glenn Beck said about Brown, right? In the immediate wake of the victory, he had this to say: "I want a chastity belt on this man. I want his every move watched in Washington. I don't trust this guy. This one could end with a dead intern. I'm just saying. It could end with a dead intern." Also, he's not alone on the right firing off criticism at Brown. Here's Randall Terry on Brown: "I - like many other political activists – am enjoying the moment of “Ted Kennedy’s seat” going to a Republican. The problem is that Scott Brown supports Roe vs. Wade. In other words, he supports the brutal murder of children in the womb for any reason; he defends the barbaric practice of those babies being decapitated, or chemically burned to death, and then casting their mangled bodies into sewers and landfills for graves. Simply put: He is not a friend of the babies; he is their enemy... We need to replace Scott Brown as soon as we can with a true defender of babies’ lives, not a phony who supports their murder." So, I hope Brown enjoys the three years he has in DC, because it appears the left and the right are going to come after him. EDIT - I had to link to this music video starring Brown's wife[/u][/url]. Enjoy. Trust me, I'm tickled that Brown got elected, if only because the family seems to be full of fameballs who will make DC a much more interesting place.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,748
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jan 22, 2010 16:13:29 GMT -5
Eating the Dinosaur was okay. I go back and forth on Klosterman. I think when he gets too far into psychology he annoys me because he looks for somewhat involved psychological motivations for people when simpler one exists (and he dismisses without comment).
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,303
|
Post by Cambridge on Jan 22, 2010 16:15:45 GMT -5
Eating the Dinosaur was okay. I go back and forth on Klosterman. I think when he gets too far into psychology he annoys me because he looks for somewhat involved psychological motivations for people when simpler one exists (and he dismisses without comment). I agree. I still think the interviewing portion was interesting, not so much for his own musings, but because of who he interviews, what he asks them and how they react.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,455
|
Post by TC on Jan 22, 2010 17:19:09 GMT -5
I thought the interviewing portion was way too meta and indulgent, although I did enjoy him talking about it on Simmons. I thought the other chapters were more interesting - like the Ralph Sampson chapter and the Unabombers thoughts on freedom vs technology.
|
|