It's amazing what happens when you put smart people on television:
Moments like the owning of Greg Craig (starting around 7:55) are probably why people like Glenn aren't usually asked to appear on these shows.
Kudos to Jake Tapper for allowing this to happen, watch a replay of the whole panel discussion if you get a chance.
Showing newest posts with label Media. Show older posts
Showing newest posts with label Media. Show older posts
Monday, May 17, 2010
Glenn Greenwald on This Week
Monday, October 12, 2009
Calling Out Fox News
The White House drops some truth bombs:
Marginalizing Fox News is an important goal for the progressive movement in the long term, and it's great to see this being done at the highest levels.WASHINGTON -- After months of low-grade rhetorical combat with Fox News, the White House finally declared all-out war this weekend.
"It really is not a news network at this point," White House communications director Anita Dunn told CNN's "Reliable Sources" on Sunday.
. . .
But still, Dunn's blunt language on Sunday took things to a new level. "They're widely viewed as, you know, part of the Republican Party," she said. "Take their talking points and put them on the air. Take their opposition research and put them on the air, and that's fine. But let's not pretend they're a news network the way CNN is." Even the captions the network uses to headline its stories, Dunn said, are slanted.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Talking About Policy is for Suckers
Sometimes shows like Hardball give you truth bombs that are much more closer to reality than anyone is willing to admit:
CILLIZZA: Here's the problem. She, she holds a press conference, she brings the leadership with her to show that everyone is behind her.What Digby said:
MATTHEWS: Yeah, but Steny was acting like her defender, he's her biggest rival...
CILLIZZA: I agree. She talks for, they talk for twenty-five minutes about essentially nothing. Everyone knows she has a plane to catch...
MATTHEWS: It's called policy, by the way, Chris. (LAUGHTER) Something only a political reporter would say.
CILLIZZA: That gets me. Well-played.
SIMON: Stuff we don't care about...
MATTHEWS: All this stuff, health care, cap and trade, all this stuff.
Political reporters are often derided as being sportswriters. But sportswriters actually bother to watch the game. Cillizza's comment is akin to saying that the Lakers and the Nuggets for four quarters did "essentially nothing" to run out the clock on the postgame press conference so reporters couldn't ask Kobe about his relationship with Phil Jackson. I've never seen a group of journalists so openly dismissive about a subject they ostensibly exist to cover.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
One Day Jon Stewart "Will Answer" for All His Truth Telling
Somehow, Jim Cramer finds the courage to speak publicly:
"No one wants to suffer a beat-down. No one wants to be humiliated or embarrassed. I was shocked at [host Jon Stewart's] behavior. I wish he knew about my background, and I wish he knew about a lot of things that I had done, because I think he would've thanked me instead of attacked me...I think the attack on CNBC and the attacks on me were gravely misplaced. It was rather remarkable in that it was so clear that his goal was to just destroy me. One day he'll answer for it."If I remember the show correctly, Cramer actually gave that speech about all the good stuff he does and how he should be thanked for all his work exposing fraud in the financial markets on the Daily Show. Then Jon Stewart proceeded to play clips of him advocating stock manipulation and other ways of illegally gaming the system. Cramer sat there at a loss for words, looking as humiliated and embarrassed as you'd expect an exposed liar on national television to be.
And then Jim Cramer went back to his daily show and TV appearences, as we resume our existance in an alternate reality where Jim Cramer is a market guru and Jon Stewart is a egotistical asshole who needs to be taken to task. We live in a media climate where simple fact based realities like "being right" vs "being wrong" have no importance whatsoever.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Great Moments in Journalism
Joe Scarborough: (via Atrios)
"if planes go into buildings...blame Dana Priest" for exposing use of waterboarding
Monday, April 13, 2009
Fox News and the Teabagging
I realize that Fox News acting as a PR arm of the right is nothing new, but you'd think this would be getting a little more mainstream attention/criticism:
Despite its repeated insistence that its coverage is "fair and balanced" and its invitation to viewers to "say 'no' to biased media," in recent weeks, Fox News has frequently aired segments encouraging viewers to get involved with "tea party" protests across the country, which the channel has often described as primarily a response to President Obama's fiscal policies. Specifically, Fox News has in dozens of instances provided attendance and organizing information for future protests, such as protest dates, locations and website URLs. Fox News websites have also posted information and publicity material for protests. Fox News hosts have repeatedly encouraged viewers to join them at several April 15 protests that they are attending and covering; during the April 6 edition of Glenn Beck, on-screen text characterized these events as "FNC Tax Day Tea Parties." Tea-party organizers have used the planned attendance of the Fox News hosts to promote their protests. Fox News has also aired numerous interviews with protest organizers. Moreover, Fox News contributors are listed as "Tea Party Sponsor[s]" on TaxDayTeaParty.com. Media Matters for America has compiled the following analysis of Fox News' promotion of the tea-party protests. (Most transcripts are taken from the Nexis database.)While it would be nice for Democratic officials to take a stand and not grant access to a network that exists solely to attack their policies, I'm not gonna hold my breath. Instead I'll take the next couple days to enjoy the comedic gold that these protests give us. Thanks to media matters, a sample of what we can expect on the 15th:
Ladies and gentlemen, your modern day Republican party!
Monday, April 6, 2009
Got Bashing Unions on the Mind, David?
Questions related to unions from a 20 minute segment on this Sunday's Meet the Press:(via Media Matters)
Questions about GM's refusal to make fuel efficient or environmentally friendly cars, and the role that played in the company's downfall?GREGORY: The legacy costs, meaning all of the costs associated with union employees, part of the United Auto Workers, is just a huge issue for General Motors. The government report indicates that in order to pay those retired auto workers, GM has to produce an extra 900,000 cars every year. What is the message to the union now? Doesn't it have to be "those days are over"?
[...]
GREGORY: Well, let's talk about how you can do more. How many union jobs are there in a typical factory for General Motors that have nothing to do with producing an automobile?
[...]
GREGORY: But in some factories, you have a shop steward who's responsible for appointing -- whether it's a civil rights chief or an education person -- these are all union jobs that don't have anything to do with producing the car.
[...]
GREGORY: You have told health-care managers and executives over 65 that they no longer get health-care benefits. They have to revert at that point to Medicare. Is it time for union workers to accept that same limit?
[...]
GREGORY: But do you think that's the kind of cut that the union should have to accept?
[...]
GREGORY: Do you really expect this president, given how strongly supported he is by the unions, do you really expect him to take a step that would hurt the unions?
Follow up question on why CEO Fritz Henderson feels comfortable taking a 1.3 Million dollar salary at a company about to go bankrupt?
Heckuva job, David!
Friday, April 3, 2009
Glenn Beck's 9/11 Porn
Starting a movement to relive the way we felt on September 12, 2001?
Either Glenn Beck is a terrible actor or the craziest person in the history of television.
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| The 10/31 Project | ||||
| ||||
Friday, March 13, 2009
Jon Stewart Eviscerates Jim Cramer and Shames the Media in the Process
Once again Jon Stewart, the host of a comedy show that airs on Comedy Central, has done a harder hitting interview than anything I've ever seen on an actual news outlet. While some of Stewart's interviews with political opponents are kept light with a few extra jokes, tonight was not one of those nights. Not only did he refuse to let up, Stewart anger was palpable and he actually seemed to go harder at him in the interview than any of the previously taped segments. Cramer was at a loss for words multiple times throughout the interview, and his stock responses were interrupted several times by Stewart playing recently released clips of Cramer himself calmly encouraging borderline illegal trading activity.
If you haven't seen the interview yet, anything I'm saying won't do it justice. I can honestly say it was one of the best moments I've ever seen on television, one of those few moments where the right questions are asked, no one let their foot off the pedal, and the person in question is so completely guilty as charged that they can hardly muster a response.
And all of this aired on Comedy Central. If there is a better example of the sad state of our news media than what happened last night, I'd like to see it.
Here are the clips:
Oh yeah, and this also happens to be our 600th post on the Train of Thought. So Congrats to us, we couldn't have asked for a better present!
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Great Moments in Polling
On CNN.com: (Via Jason Linkins)
So, what do you think of Obama's first 50 days?
Yes or No?
Friday, March 6, 2009
Jon Stewart Destroys CNBC/ Colbert lets Glenn Beck Destroy Himself
For those who didn't already see it, Jon Stewart at his finest:
Update: I'll add these two Colbert clips too, because this has been one of the best weeks for the Daily Show/Colbert in recent memory. The best part about the first clip, is that you couldn't make up something crazier than what Glenn Beck is actually doing.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Consistency
All quotes are from the New York Times Editorial Page:
(Stolen from Moon Over Alabama)
Hugo Chávez apparently doesn’t believe Venezuelan voters, who just more than a year ago rejected his bid to eliminate the term limits that are blocking his continued rule. On Sunday, he is giving them another chance. For the sake of Venezuela’s democracy, they should again vote no on changing the nation’s constitution.
Venezuelans’ Right to Say No, NY Times, Editorial, Feb 13, 2009
[Mr. Chavéz] should abandon for good his push to change the Constitution so that he can run for a third term in 2013. Venezuelans deserve the chance to choose a competent government.
Hugo Chávez’s Choice, NY Times, Editorial, Nov 24, 2008
We supported Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s bid for the right to stand for a third term because we strongly believe that voters deserve as rich a choice as possible on Election Day — and term limits narrow that choice.
Mayor Bloomberg’s Opportunity, NY Times, Editorial, Nov 9, 2008
This page has always strongly opposed term limits, and we continue to oppose them. We believe they infringe a basic American right: the voters’ right to choose who they want in office. If we had our way, the Council would be voting to abolish term limits altogether.
The question of voter choice is particularly relevant now. Although a majority of New Yorkers, according to a recent Quinnipiac poll, oppose changing the term-limits rule, a majority of New Yorkers also strongly approve Mr. Bloomberg’s performance and, more to the point, say they would vote for him given the opportunity.
They should be given that opportunity.
Term Limits and the Council, NY Times, Editorial, Oct 22, 2008
The bedrock of American democracy is the voters’ right to choose. Though well intentioned, New York City’s term limits law severely limits that right, which is why this page has opposed term limits from the outset.
The Limits of Term Limits, NY Times, Editorial, Sep 30, 2008
Mr. Chávez’s approval rating has plunged since December, when he narrowly lost a referendum that would have given him even more power and allowed him to run for re-election indefinitely.
...
He must stop using the levers of the state to harass his political opposition at home. And he must stop trying to seize by decree powers that voters denied him in December’s referendum.
Hugo Chávez, New and Improved, NY Times, Editorial, Jun 15, 2008
An article in The Times the other day about Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s political ambitions reminded us of how little we like term limits.
...
We opposed term limits when New York City voters first approved them in 1993. (They were reaffirmed in 1996.) Term limits are undeniably seductive. They seem to promise relief from mediocre, self-perpetuating incumbents and from gridlocked legislatures in places like Albany. They also diminish democracy, arbitrarily deny choice, reduce accountability and squander experience.The deceptive charm of term limits is that they automatically purge the system of rascally politicians. But democracy vests that power in every citizen who chooses to vote. Meanwhile, of course, term limits automatically retire excellent public servants whose instincts and experience are not easily replaced. Their future should also rest with the voters.
The Seductive Charms of Term Limits, NY Times, Editorial, Jun 9, 2008
I don't really know how I feel about term limits, I tend to lean pro, but you have to love pompous statements like "This page has always strongly opposed term limits" and then completely contradicting themselves when it's convenient.[Mr. Chavéz] favorite provisions, of course, would extend the presidential term from six to seven years and remove presidential term limits.
...
Opponents are calling for a massive “no” vote. For the sake of Venezuela’s battered democracy, voters should heed the call.
Saying No to Chávez, NY Times, Editorial, Dec 1, 2007
With that said, this does fit with our "The Train of Thought has always opposed editorial pages sounding like elitist douche bags" stand we took a while back.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
They lost the election. Let's hear what they have to say!
We have a Democratic president, and solid Democratic majorities in the house and senate. So when the first major bill is debated on cable news... (Via Yglesias)
Damn liberal media!
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
So stupid it hurts
Sweet Jesus. While it may be clear to 99.9% of the people watching the show, I guess Glenn Beck can't wrap his mind around the fact that Jack Bauer IS NOT REAL. His name is Keiffer Southerland, and he is not a special agent. He is a talented actor who has a drinking problem. Funnily enough, he has spoken out against REAL LIFE torture, but then again none of this matters because 24 IS A FICTIONAL TV SHOW.During the January 13 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade falsely suggested that only "people at the U.N. [United Nations]" want to close the U.S. military-run detention facility at Guantánamo Bay. Discussing torture in Fox Broadcasting Co.'s TV drama 24, Kilmeade asked Fox News' Glenn Beck: "Do you think anybody talks about Gitmo except these people at the U.N., who think it's the worst thing that's ever happened?" While Kilmeade was speaking, Beck answered, "No." In fact, Sen. John McCain, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger, James Baker, Warren Christopher, Madeleine Albright, and Colin Powell are among those who have said that Guantánamo should be closed.
Beck and the Fox & Friends hosts also invoked 24 as a justification for the use of torture. Referring to the show's recent season premiere, in which protagonist Jack Bauer, a former member of the fictional "Counter Terrorist Unit," defends his use of torture during a hearing before Congress, Beck said: "[I]t's going to take somebody who sits in front of Congress who is not afraid of them anymore and does what Jack Bauer did. And that is, 'Yes, I did torture, and I'm proud of it.' And it's time for these things to come out of the closet." Introducing an excerpt from 24, in which Bauer is seen answering questions from a congressional committee about torture, Kilmeade stated: "Let's listen to what happened in the fictional series 24 and see if this helps build your argument."
After the clip, co-host Steve Doocy said: "In particular, in that clip, you know, the guy [fictional Sen. Blaine Mayer] goes, 'You tortured them.' And he [Bauer] goes, 'Well, it probably was torture under your definition. But ask the people whose lives I saved whether or not it was worth me going over the edge' -- they would probably -- you ask the average person, 'Is it OK to do something, rough somebody up, to save lives?' You ask the person on the street, they'd say, 'Yeah, why not?' "
During the segment, on-screen text read: "What Americans Need to Hear; Beck Applauds Jack Bauer's Honesty"
I (and I'm assuming the other 99.9% of people who manage live their lives while distinguishing fiction from reality) watch 24 because it's entertaining. There are tons of twists, cliffhanger endings, explosions, and most importantly, lots of Jack Bauer running around and singlehandedly fucking shit up Rambo style.
The first episode contains, a person surviving two M16 shots to the chest and a secret conspiracy within the US Government to help a genocide involving multiple traitors within the president's cabinet and FBI. Jack Bauer drives through a concrete barrier out the second story of a parking garage while pinned underneath the driver's seat, only to easily run away from the scene afterwards. The season opened with one of the main characters coming back from the dead... so we're talking about soap opera levels suspended disbelief.
And that's ok, because I'm pretty sure realism wasn't the goal here, whether it relates to torture or people being able to run through machine gun fire.
So before he gets carried away, somebody better keep Beck's hands off of a Robocop DVD, or we'd have calls for a privatized robotic police force before you know it. Yeah, I know it's Glenn Beck and I shouldn't be surprised, but this close to livestock levels of intelligence.
And when the front page of today's post IN THE REAL WORLD reads "9/11 Suspect Tortured, Says Trial Overseer", there are probably more important things to discuss than what happened on a TV show.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Coherent Writing FAIL
I'd be the first to admit that I'm not a great writer, but at least this is just a stupid blog, not a column in the New York Fucking Times:(Via Ezra Klein)
Over the next couple of years, two very big countries, America and China, will give birth to something very important. They’re each going to give birth to close to $1 trillion worth of economic stimulus — in the form of tax cuts, infrastructure, highways, mass transit and new energy systems. But a lot is riding on these two babies. If China and America each give birth to a pig — a big, energy-devouring, climate-spoiling stimulus hog — our kids are done for. It will be the burden of their lifetimes. If they each give birth to a gazelle — a lean, energy-efficient and innovation-friendly stimulus — it will be the opportunity of their lifetimes.I've read this paragraph at least 10 times, I still have no clue what Thomas Friedman is attempting to say. Why is the stimulus a baby? Why beat the the baby metaphor into the ground when when it didn't really make sense to begin with? Why are China and America giving birth to livestock offspring? Why did one of our country's most reputable newspapers pay him a lot of money to write this?
It reminds me of the great Thomas Friedman take down a few years back, by one of my personal favorite writers, Matt Tiabbi:
The usual ratio of Friedman criticism is 2:1, i.e., two human words to make sense of each single word of Friedmanese. Friedman is such a genius of literary incompetence that even his most innocent passages invite feature-length essays. I'll give you an example, drawn at random from The World Is Flat. On page 174, Friedman is describing a flight he took on Southwest Airlines from Baltimore to Hartford, Connecticut. (Friedman never forgets to name the company or the brand name; if he had written The Metamorphosis, Gregor Samsa would have awoken from uneasy dreams in a Sealy Posturepedic.) Here's what he says:That seems about right for the man whose greatest contribution to our national discourse was explaining how we needed to go into Iraq in order to tell the middle east to "suck on this".I stomped off, went through security, bought a Cinnabon, and glumly sat at the back of the B line, waiting to be herded on board so that I could hunt for space in the overhead bins.
Forget the Cinnabon. Name me a herd animal that hunts. Name me one.
This would be a small thing were it not for the overall pattern. Thomas Friedman does not get these things right even by accident. It's not that he occasionally screws up and fails to make his metaphors and images agree. It's that he always screws it up. He has an anti-ear, and it's absolutely infallible; he is a Joyce or a Flaubert in reverse, incapable of rendering even the smallest details without genius. The difference between Friedman and an ordinary bad writer is that an ordinary bad writer will, say, call some businessman a shark and have him say some tired, uninspired piece of dialogue: Friedman will have him spout it. And that's guaranteed, every single time. He never misses.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
The Epistemology of 21st Century Journalism, Part 1: Why Newspapers are Dying
The short answer? They haven't been writing enough articles like this.
For reasons you'll see in a moment, I agree with Andrew Sullivan that blogs are parasitic on the work of traditional journalists, particularly that of good investigative reporters. But aspects of this situation are changing: bloggers have started to win their fights for press credentials, and the prestige and access that traditional journalists used to enjoy exclusively is starting to look merely overpriced in the face of hard, unique work like FiveThirtyEight's On The Road series and just about everything original put out by Talking Points Memo (not to mention larger sites like The Huffington Post). No longer is it embarrassing to be interviewed by an internet-only publication: as often as not, bloggers are professional journalists who provide information that is utterly lacking in the mainstream, and people have started to realize it.
To make matters infinitely more interesting, some surprising names have started showing up in the bylines on some of the larger blogs: Keith Olbermann, John Kerry (who, it turns out, is awesome), Ted Kennedy, NY Governor David Patterson and a number of others all write diaries on Daily Kos; Darcy Burner and ACORN NYC executive director Bertha Lewis are now frontpagers on OpenLeft. That's a fantastic development. To be in direct communication with people in (relative) national power is something that ordinary citizens haven't had a chance to experience since the early 20th century, if ever.
What makes it so cool are moments like Friday, when Olbermann's post about Clinton's Secretary of State chances was joined on the Kos reclist by a strenuous objection to his reasoning and sources. That is actual, real discourse, and if it hasn't completely unclothed the emperor then it's at least revealing his fairly silly purple underpants.
There's only one truism worth its salt in the Western intellectual tradition, after all, and it was Socrates's fundamental point: no one really knows what they're talking about. There are experts, and there are geniuses, but if you push them hard enough then they'll come up short every single time. And yet, the more you push, the more interesting it gets.
The fact that NYT or CNN reporters are trusted merely because they're in the news is therefore a structural problem with our approach to knowledge. The internet has helped to reveal it, by offering alternatives and forcing improvement, but it's always been there. In part because of that revelation, the traditional media is starting to fail on a number of fronts.
It's not a bad thing, that they're floundering. With all due respect to the incredibly talented people who work in the mainstream – and there are many – the industry as a whole just has no hope of keeping up with the pace of analysis that the average internet user has come to expect. After reading FiveThirtyEight, OpenLeft and Pollster for a month or two, for example, watching someone on CNN talk about their "Poll of Polls", or seeing the AP hype its latest poll without the slightest deference to the surrounding context is downright embarrassing – and it's a problem that arises because there's no one to tell them to wake up and improve their methods.
To make matters worse, a columnist for the New York Times cannot possibly read and understand every one of the thousands of daily comments. And why should they? Most of them, as far as I can tell, are by crazy people who don't even try to understand the issue. By contrast, the comments on the blogs I read tend to be more manageable and of high enough quality that the solicitation of comments is are often the point of the post. A certain amount of self-selection is a good thing, even if it comes with a price.
As a professor of mine once argued, though, the fracturing of journalism could represent a return to our epistemological condition before the idea of "objectivity" was invented, when trust and knowledge was based more on the individual's personal acquaintance with a speaker than in the norms governing what they said and how they came to conclude it. But that simultaneously short-changes the blogs while over-selling traditional journalism: while the mainstream tends to rely on a small number of relatively static commentators, the internet (at least in its present uncrystallized form) is beautifully meritocratic. Though the actual situation is naturally more complicated, it's not far from the truth to say that bloggers succeed or fail entirely because of their ability while the positions of pundits in other media are determined by a much more roundabout process. (Also, objectivity is made up. But that's another story).
To put it in polemical terms, the internet is more diverse, more open to criticism, smarter, faster, soon to be more heavily populated (if it isn't already). Paradoxically, by contrast, the large media outlets are too small, too limited, too isolated, and too inflexible to partake in the dialogue about current events. Which makes them, in internet terms, too stupid. The small number of traditional news organizations simply cannot offer the depth of analysis of thousands of small blogs.
And there is something absolutely wonderful about the range of news sources today. I'll talk about this in more depth in a later post, but the ability to read five or six articles on a given topic, note their differences and come to an independent conclusion is something that only internet-based media can provide. Once exposed to that diversity, the idea of reading the NYT cover-to-cover everyday seems like just a waste of time. Why trust any one source to get everything about an important story right, anymore?
Yet this is probably a good time to start talking about how we really do need The Press, since newspapers across the country are on the brink of failure (including the vaunted New York Times, whose profits dipped 51% last quarter), posing a real threat to that beautiful diversity.
One of the reasons we need them is theoretical: without national discourse – even stupid national discourse – there's effectively no discourse. We need the stereotypical, largely stupid, sometimes corrupt, constantly maligned mainstream media to say things that we can agree or disagree with. They define the parameters of the debate, because theirs is the largest soapbox. Even if it's sometimes detrimental, they keep us talking about the same things.
But the other, deeper reason we need them is practical. While we may be able to expect a really good blog to reliably post most of the interesting stories of the day, we can't expect any single internet source to have dozens of reporters stationed all over the word. Not yet, anyway: it's an incredibly complex and expensive endeavor to handle the legal challenges and safety concerns posed by international journalism, and blogs aren't up to it yet even though they imply some exciting possibilities. Despite the growth of truly independent news sources, traditional reporters are still the people on the ground for nearly every major story.
That said, the situation facing most freelance journalists today is essentially the same as that facing bloggers. As David Simon repeatedly notes, the cost-cutting measures that newspapers have undergone over the last decade and a half have lead to a general lack of support for investigative reporting (which hits ex-pat reporters particularly hard) and a push to try and win a Pulitzer by presenting the sad but largely bullshit story of a misunderstood community-member. Well, that hurts everyone. I don't care as much if the analysis portion of ceases to exist, since, as I have argued, blogs do it better. But we need investigative journalism for any of this to work, and that's precisely what's been slipping.
So it's a great relief to see the New York Times putting out more articles like Secret Order Lets U.S. Raid Al Qaeda by Eric Schmitt and Mark Mazzetti. This is no puff piece. It doesn't begin with a pointless emotive anecdote. It doesn't even provide any analysis. It's just deeply important, meaningful information presented in a clear and factually oriented manner with a sense of narrative flow and of the importance of knowing how important military decisions are actually made. And that's evident from the very first line:
WASHINGTON — The United States military since 2004 has used broad, secret authority to carry out nearly a dozen previously undisclosed attacks against Al Qaeda and other militants in Syria, Pakistan and elsewhere, according to senior American officials.
It's a serious and prescient issue, and so they literally don't waste a single word in the opening. And while there's a ton of information in the article, enough to give the reader a picture of how the command structure works, it's only about two net-pages long. Really, it's as good an article as I've ever read. It gives me hope for the survival of newspapers, despite the overwhelming odds.
Of course, it's worth noting that I read it online.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
What. A. Douche.
More blowhard news from annoying schill and Daniel Snyder crony Larry Michael, as Monday he apparently called out Washington Post Wizards beat writer Ivan Carter on his daily radio show. This from Dan Steinberg:
Yeah, that's right, Ivan Carter is next in The Anti-Sourcerer's crosshairs, because he apparently once recently made a joke about Michael during Washington Post Live.
And so, we were presented with this during Redskins Nation on Monday:
"Last week, because of time constraints, I didn't get a chance to address one of The Sourcerer's co-workers, who in fact has called me out on a program right here on Comcast SportsNet. A man I've never met, a man I've never heard of. But in fact, he called me out on behalf of The Sourcerer. Source Meter today's on Orange, we'll keep on eye on it for you folks, but a disturbing situation unfolding for sure."
I cannot reiterate enough times that this man needs to eat shit and die. In case you're unfamiliar with why we hate Michael quite as much as we do, here's a quick refresher course; he basically forced out longtime voice of the Redskins, play-by-play man Frank Herzog, and replaced him by installing himself. He's also an incredible homer (growing up in Silver Spring and graduating from the University of Maryland) and has sided with Snyder and Redskins GM Vinny Cerrato in a silly feud between the members of the organization and Washington Post beat writer Jason La Canfora, who covers the team.
So, once more, in order to really drive the point home... Larry Michael: FUCK OFF!
I love the team just as much as you do, but it is not your job to only report the positive side of all stories concerning the Redskins or to inject your own bias into your reporting. Get a life, you ass.
(One last editor's note, do not confuse Larry Michael with George Michael, the longtime D.C. area sportscaster who now co-hosts Cerrato's radio show. Also, do not confuse George Michael with British pop singer George Michael. I guess this was more complicated than I thought it was going to be.)
Rachel Maddow & David Sirota
Since JJ mentioned David Sirota and Rachel Maddow in the comments, it seems fitting to put up a recent video of both in the same room. My take on Maddow, who only recently secured her spot at MSNBC, is that if the press is going to be blasted as "liberal" no matter how conservative they actually are, they might as well live up to the name and have some fun in the process. Here is some of the awesomeness:
My favorite bit, aside from Rachel's barely-contained amusement at McCain's wild flailing and totally inconsistent stances and rhetoric is David's "Most people are not 100% invested in the stock market. So, in other words, what he's doing here is painting his economic package with the veneer of real policy. But it's not real policy. The only real policy in here is that capital gains tax cut, which is, as I said, nobody's making capital gains right now and it's paid mostly by millionaires."
Right on. And this is on The Television.
Friday, August 22, 2008
Media notes: Michael Phelps and Usain Bolt
This post is not going to be very extensive or researched; I just wanted to ramble for a second about what I have perceived to be unequal treatment between the two biggest newsmakers at this year's Olympics. Without a doubt, Michael Phelps' historic eight gold medals has to be the top story, especially when added to all the ones he's won before. We truly witnessed history in real time and this feat may not be touched for years to come.
I found myself watching every race of his, even the preliminaries because it was just that captivating. This is coming from someone who, like most Americans, could not care less about swimming any other time except for right now. So I don't want to sound insane by suggesting for a moment that Phelps does not deserve top billing here; I'm not.
It's just that you have to consider what Jamaican sprinter Usain Bolt has done: he shattered the most glamorous world record there is, the 100-meter dash, the most basic determinant of the world's fastest human. He also easily broke the 200m record (which is his original event; supposedly he entered the 100m trials as a fluke on the suggestion of his trainer and broke the world record this past May, prior to destroying his own record to win the gold in Beijing) and won his third gold today in the 4 x 400m, again breaking a world record.
You cannot say that Bolt isn't an extremely close second to Phelps in terms of having the most incredible Olympics of any single athlete possibly in history. Not that many people are arguing that, actually, but what has me upset is this underlying resentment of Bolt's accomplishments from the media and fan reaction.
It may just be me, and I'm curious as to other people's thoughts on this subject, but it seems like every time Bolt's name is mentioned, it's followed by "never one to be shy," or "as much as he loves the cameras/spotlight/attention," or something along those lines (here is one example in the lead graph of a story on today's gold medal win). Okay, maybe it was a bit much when he shifted down on the last 20 meters of the 100, started pumping his chest mid-race AND STILL EASILY BROKE THE WORLD RECORD. I know that rubs a lot of people the wrong way. But in my mind, that is not enough to chastise him as being selfish and arrogant at every turn.
I don't know, I haven't seen any interviews of him so he may actually be arrogant. Still, if you were that fast seemingly without even trying that hard, wouldn't you have to be kind of arrogant? How can you not enjoy yourself on the world's biggest stage when you're having the kind of success he is?
I also don't want to paint this as strictly a racial double-standard in terms of media coverage, even though part of me feels that there is some truth to this. What this is unquestionably an example of, though, is an international double-standard set by NBC, whose coverage of this year's games has been terrible in my book. If an event doesn't feature an American in some way, I feel NBC has pushed it to the background. In fact, most of Bolt's exploits weren't even shown live, thus losing some of their luster. I feel as though this stance has been somewhat justified when it comes to sports such as gymnastics, where the host country is just clearly not playing by the rules. But even in events in which other nations thrive, all you hear is commentary about what the Americans did wrong, or how the Americans could have done better, or excuses for the Americans poor showing, or... you get the idea.
Okay, I feel like I've ranted about as much as necessary here. Whew, I feel a lot better now.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Nas and Colorofchange take on Fox News
About four hours after the announcement that his controversial, politically charged ninth album was number one in the country, Nas was on a small podium in front of Fox News headquarters in New York City protesting what he sees as racist attacks against Black Americans and presidential candidate Barack Obama. In a brief prepared statement, the multi-platinum rapper pointed out examples of what he and ColorOfChange see as a long racist smear campaign against the Obama family: The onscreen graphic that referred to Michelle Obama as the Senator’s “baby mama”; Bill O’Reilly casually using the phrase “lynching party” to refer to attacks on the Senator’s wife; referencing to the couple’s infamous fist thump as a “terrorist fist jab.” Said Nas, “Fox poisons this country every time they air racist propaganda and try to call it news. This should outrage every American that Fox uses hateful language to talk about the person that may be the first black president.”Update with Video of the event:
The rapper stood next to 19 neatly stacked cardboard boxes, with the number 620,127 taped to the side of each one — over 600,000 signatures gathered by ColorOfChange demanding that network president Roger Ailes “find a solution to address racial stereotyping and hate-mongering before it hits the airwaves.” Fox rejected the petitions, but Brave New Films says that Comedy Central’s The Colbert Report will accept them instead.
Fox News wouldn't except their petitions. Luckily, Stephen Colbert would: Video Here, embed is screwing up.
I just got Nas' new album, and I'm really liking what I've heard so far. Nas has always been one of my favorite MCs, but to see him use his celebrity to bring light to an important issue and advance the cause of a great progressive organization is too fucking cool.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
