WELCOME TO BOSNIA! Palin misstated, but KO did too. Welcome to tribal cable: // link // print // previous // next //
FRIDAY, JUNE 18, 2010
Needless to say, their piece needs a lot more work. Well critique it on Monday.
Ron Reagan, unprepared, unembarrassed: In the past eighteen years, the New York Times has created a real rogues gallery of reporters.
Jeff Gerth, with his Whitewater scam. Katherine Seelye, with her dissembling about Candidate Gore. Judith Miller, in the run-up to war with Iraq. Jayson Blair, with his flat-out inventions.
For our money, Raymond Hernandez is on the verge of adding his name to that list. Yesterday, Hernandez presented his latest hack-work about Richard Blumenthals alleged vile lies. And good grief! On the very same day, Jeff Zeleny did another report on Mark Kirks alleged vile liesa report which may be even more absurd, and more unfair, than Hernandezs report about Blumenthal.
As weve learned: When this newspaper starts, it never stops. It never abandons its narratives.
How absurd were yesterdays reports? For sheer absurdity, consider the way Zeleny started his report about Kirk.
Poor Zeleny! He has his shorts in a wad for a curious reason. Hes upset because Kirk has called himself a former teachereven though he actually is one:
According to Zeleny, Kirk actually is a former teacher; he taught for a full year in a London middle school. But when Kirk appears before a teachers group and calls himself a former teacher, Zeleny gets his fancy silk shorts all tangled up in a knot. He should have said that he didnt teach long, the fastidious Timesman reports.
Sorry. Its absolutely absurd to complain about that quoted statement. But for the record: In adopting this approach, Zeleny revives a standard format: When a targeted liar says things which are true, the Times will list all the other true things they think he should have said!
The Times devotes a full news report to this latest outrage by Kirk. In all honesty, Hernandezs piece about Blumenthal wasnt much better, though the journalistic dissembling is a bit more complex. (For one example of Hernandez reasoning, try this: Since everyone remembers his draft lottery number from 1969, Blumenthal falls under suspicion when he says he cant recall his!)
Simple story: Once the New York Times pegs you a liar, the great paper never gives up. What was really pitiful was the way Ed Schultz and Chris Matthews raced to promote this latest bowl of crapola on yesterdays cable programs, helped along by the usual gangs of compliant, unprepared pundits. In each case, wed say their conduct of the hosts was repulsivethe sort of thing that would get real news broadcasters fired.
How bad was yesterdays cable conduct? When we watch garbage like this from Schultz, a basic thought pops into our headits time for this waste-meat to go:
Astonishing. There isnt a word in the Times report to suggest that Kirk was never a teacher. But none of yesterdays cable pundits seemed to have the slightest idea what they were talking about. On Hardball, Ron Reagan was the most egregious offender. People who say things like this on the air ought to get out of the business:
Correct me if Im wrong here, guys? Reagan had agreed to go on the air to discuss the Kirk/Blumenthal stories. This was the only topic this pundit panel discussed. But in this remarkable statement, Reagan said he wasnt sure about the most basic elements of the pre-existing Kirk story. Truly, that is astonishing conductconduct for which Reagan should be reviled. But despite his lack of preparation, Reagan went on two extended tears about the lies of Kirk and Blumenthal. And good God! Amid all the typical pundit LAUGHTER, his idiot host ended up saying this:
What a fool! The thought doesnt enter this idiots head that his guests should be knowledgeable about their topics (or that they should decline to appear). When Reagan admits that he hasnt prepared, Matthews sees this as humility.
Ive never said I was wrong, Matthews says. Weve noticed, the analysts cried.
Hernandez is a growing cancer on the senate; Zelenys report was the work of a fool. But Schultz and Matthews embarrassed themselves, clowning and misstating basic facts as they savaged Kirk and Blumenthal for that same alleged offense.
They sent George Bush to the White House this way. Happy with how that turned out?
(Matthews also made flat misstatements. Mark Kirk talks about himself as being an old like public school teacher in the toughest neighborhoods in Chicago, he said at one point, falsely. It turns out all he ever did was teaching in a nursery school. Also false, in a segment designed to measure two pols respect for the truth.)
WELCOME TO BOSNIA (permalink): The tribalization of the U.S. electorate continues apace on cable. As once in Bosnia, so here today: Increasingly, the liberal tribe and the conservative tribe are handed strikingly different sets of facts about our politics.
Consider KOs report about the Dutch and the Norwegians on Wednesday evenings Coundown.
As usual, Keith was feeding his viewers that good strong liberal gruel. As he opened his program, he said wed get a good laugh later on, if we just stuck around. As usual, this particular comic relief would involve the idiot, Sarah Palin:
Oh boythis would be good fun! But as it turned out, Palins statement about the Dutch and the Norwegians wasnt any more idiotic than Olbermanns subsequent presentation. In fact, we would say that Palins presentation was more accurate than Olbermanns, on balancethat it was Olbermanns liberal viewers who were more strongly misled. In fact, that first statement by Palinthe one quoted aboveseems to be perfectly accurate, though Olbermanns viewers would have no idea by the time their great hero had finished.
Good old KO! He teased the upcoming segment two more times, deriding Palin as Miss Bendy Straws and Americas Oil Princess. Eventually, we got our comic relief, as KO started his segment about the stupid thing Palin had said. As he started, Olbermann summarized Palins statementand he offered a grossly inaccurate statement about his other top target, Bill OReilly:
Speaking of people who fix the news, thats what KO was already doing! In fact, OReilly was quite skeptical about the things Palin said on Tuesday nights program, as he frequently is. That said, Olbermanns summary of Palins statement was basically accurate. When she spoke with Mr. O, she did say that Obama had erred when it came to the Dutch and the Norwegiansthat the administration had rejected their help.
Olbermann let us know how stupid this was. In the process, he misled his viewers. To wit:
After offering one absurd rebuttal of something Palin had said, KO played more tape of her statements about the Dutch and the Norwegians. He then used the authority of the Washington Post to wave her comments away. As he did so, he grossly misrepresented what the Post had reported about the matter in question. Insults and name-calling to the side, KOs presentation is technically accuratebut its highly misleading:
Watching Olbermann, you would have thought that the Washington Post contradicted what Palin said. But thats only true to a point.
What did the Washington Post actually say in the report KO quoted? (He was citing this news report by Juliet Eilperin and Glenn Kessler.) Your first clue comes in the Posts headline: After delays, U.S. begins to tap foreign aid in gulf spill (our emphasis). Simple story: Olbermanns quote for that report was accurate, but it was highly selective and grossly misleading. According to Eilperin and Kessler, the U.S. has now started accepting help from these foreign governmentsbut only after rejecting such help earlier in the gulf disaster. This is the way the Post report startedthe report which Olbermann quoted:
The Post report saw the glass half full, keeping things fairly cheerful. But it described the way the U.S. had rejected help from the Dutch and the Norwegians for more than a monthhelp the U.S. is now accepting. The U.S. started accepting this help in late May, the Post reported.
The Post adopted a cheerful tone. Meanwhile, other major newspapers have reported this glass half empty. The Christian Science Monitor first reported this situation back on June 1. This was part of Mark Guarinos report:
In Guarinos report, it was BP which failed to react early on; it isnt clear when the Obama administration got into the flow. On June 9, the Houston Chronicle offered a somewhat gloomier account, Loren Steffy reporting:
Which of these three accounts is more accurate? We dont know. But Olbermann made no attempt to tell his viewers what his idiotic Oil Princess was actually talking about. He simply constructed a narrow rebuttal, then indulged in a lot of name-calling. In the process, he gave us liberals that enjoyable comic relief.
By the way: How long did viewers have to wait for this comic relief? This was the second topic Olbermann covered this night. This comic relief began about fifteen minutes into the program.
What was wrong with Palins presentation? In her segment with OReilly, she gave the impression that the Dutch and Norwegians are still being rebuffed in their offers of aid; plainly, that isnt accurate. But Olbermann simply played the fool in providing his comic relief. He name-called, clowned and generally treated his viewers like a gang of rubes.
Was Palin wrong in her basic charge? Funny that! On MSNBC, Rachel Maddow has been very hard on the bungled way the clean-up has been conducted; that criticism is A-OK, because it comes from one of our tribal leaders. And by the way: Here was tribal leader Gene Robinson, echoing Palins concern in Tuesdays Washington Post:
Why haven't skimmers been brought in from around the world? We dont know, but thats exactly the problem the idiot Palin raised!
Your countrys growing tribalization is neatly displayed in this stupid episode. Palin made one clear misstatement on Tuesday nights program, saying that the Duitch and the Norwegians are still being ignored. But Olbermann clowned and played the fool, generally misleading his viewers. On the other hand, he did gives us rubes our comic reliefand he entertained us greatly with his string of insults.
Palin overstated the case, but she described a real situation. Olbermann basically called her names, even when he showed her saying things which were perfectly accurate.
More and more, MSNBC is becoming a type of counterpart to Fox. More and more, its hosts behave like a gang of dumb, dissembling hacks. Welcome to the new Bosnia! Notethis system worked out poorly there.