Site Presented By
Saturday, Nov 7, 2009
Glenn:
You are doing exactly what I've been hoping someone would do for years now--I almost quit my own job to do it--but my hat is off to you and I'm delighted in that sort-of-envious-but-delighted way that your range goes even further than what I had imagined.
Speaking truth to power has always brought heaps of disdain and worse down on the speaker. Truth has no place at the table set by these defenders of the status quo.
The idea that they would equate Olberman and O'Reily speaks volumes. One speaks truth to those in power and the other vomits outrageous lies in support of those in power. They are opposites. These dolts need to get a clue.
Terrific post, the mainstream media's cozying up to power is one of the most dangerous trends of our time.
I do think you may have been too tough on Aravosis. It reads to me like the reference is to himself, and not Kurtz. He's not saying "You are fair" to Kurtz, he's saying "I think are you fair" as a comparison to asking "are you left" or "are you right".
was a journalist when keith was still dreaming of being a sportscaster. We get that you don't like Fox News.
Two things I'd like to ask you:
1. If you could be one of the panelists on Britt Hume's show would you? There's no doubt you have what it takes to argue a point and the interaction between you and Hume would be mesmerizing. I'd happily start a movement to make that happen.
2. In all your complaining about the press and their failing to cover the buildup of the Iraq war I don't think I've ever heard you complain about their reporting before 9/11. Don't you think that is the more glaring failure? If they had been digging on al queda and making us aware of what was going on it could have been stopped and then Iraq might never have happened.
document how we got to this state. Was Gulf war I the actual turning point? Was the change gradual? Was there some particular event that suddenly redefined journalism as not involving advocacy or adversarial reporting? Is it Geraldo's fault. What the Hell happened?
Because the only word that describes our current situation is pathetic!
What Olbermann does is subjects the statements and behavior of our most powerful government officials to critical scrutiny. That used to be the defining attribute of a "journalist." Now, it is disqualifying behavior.
I just want to point out that this sort of scrutiny is exactly what Jon Stewart does on Comedy Central, and he does not spare Democratic politicians from his pointed barbs when they engage in hypocritical behavior.
Strangely, this is what also makes him a good comedian, unlike Fox News feeble attempts at comedy that are not only juvenile, but only directed at Democrats.
Re: Aravosis on Kurtz: Read that again. I don't think John was saying he thought Kurtz was fair, he was using "you" in the generic sense -- i.e., saying he thought the question to be asked was not "are you right or left" but "are you fair", i.e., "is one fair".
I truly wonder how these people would have reacted if Edward R. Murrow had been on the air for the last 6 years, and had done to Bush/Cheney/et. al. what he did to McCarthy.
I'm actually in DC this week for work. Reading something like this makes to want to find a reporter, grab his by his lapels, and just *shake* him.
Leave aside Aravosis' praise of the Malkin-loving Kurtz as being so "fair."
He was a rabid Republican at one time so he's still in recovery.
"Aravosis is a lawyer and worked on Capitol Hill as a foreign policy advisor for Ted Stevens, a right-wing Republican senator in the late 1980s and early 1990s before becoming a Democratic activist."
It does make you wonder, about the point in continuing to use the of the left/right designation as anything more than a gauge on economic or cultural differences. I get the sense that Olbermann's transformation from essentially apolitical to his outspoken interest in politics is similar to that of many people who read this blog, and perhaps the person who writes it.
"Keith Olbermann has responded to accusations of bias by saying, "I'm not a liberal, I'm an American."
Quotes from wiki.
I read that awful AP story last night-( saying that having Olbermann anchoring the debates was the "MSNBC equivalent of Fox News Channel assigning the same duties to O'Reilly",) right after reading Mr. Greenwald's take on behind the scenes "fun' with conservative "reliable partner" Matthews. The misleading, slanted Bauder piece was wrong on so many levels -I don't expect a reply from Mr. Bauder to my email, but perhaps he will repsond to Mr. Greenwald and Ms. Walsh.
I do think you may have been too tough on Aravosis. It reads to me like the reference is to himself, and not Kurtz. He's not saying "You are fair" to Kurtz, he's saying "I think are you fair" as a comparison to asking "are you left" or "are you right".
Two people have now said this, so I'm going to be receptive to the notion that there is something to it, but as of now, I completely disagree. He's talking to Kurtz - even uses his name - and says:
ARAVOSIS: Why give Brit Hume the opportunity, is the point, Howie. You're -- some people -- some people say are you left, some people say are you right. I think are you fair. I do not think Brit Hume is fair. There's a difference.
He's contrasting Brit Hume (not fair) and Howard Kurtz (fair).
I think there's a problem with the transcript that creates ambiguity (where he says "I think are you fair," which was clearly him saying that he thinks Kurtz is fair). I didn't see the show - only read the transcript - but at least 5 people who did see it e-mailed me to alert me to what was said, and they perceived no ambiguity.
Aravosis can clear it up. He can say he didn't mean and doesn't think that Kurtz is fair, and if he does that, I'll be happy to retract it. I doubt that will happen, but if it does, I'll be the first to post the correction.
My point wasn't to single out Aravosis. But it does illustrate a problem to which everyone is vulnerable, and I mentioned it only because it is consistent with the point of the post. The way that people enter this system is by praising it and not opposing it too severely. And the more one enters it, the greater the temptation to praise and defend it.
That's not unique to any one person. It's just human nature, but it's definitely a big part of what is going on with modern journalism.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The Maine fight was supposed to be the dress rehearsal for repealing California's Prop. 8 -- but gay marriage lost
Once one obtains Seriousness credentials in the Washington media, they are irrevocable no matter one's conduct.
Salon headlines in your mailbox
