Letters to the Editor
-
sorry. stay sober like DCLaw1 said. no get bitter.
Go to the Sorbonne. Wine is proverbial.
No get the gaudiest or get too angry.
Dine well. And more so thanks for acting indulgently.
sorry ifs I's appearing crude or extra rude.
The 'site' is for discriminating palates.
What discriminating minds do visit here.
-
Che Pasa
If you pass via Hagerstown ever again in a Ford or GMC or a 1958 Buick...
I'll buy you a bowl of pinto-bean-chili con-carny at the Wafflehouse.
-
Glenn G: Spot on analysis of Matthews, Dowd and the press in general
I listen to Matthews...
I read Dowd....
and I nash my teeth in frustration at the inanity of "journalism" in the US.
Thank you Glenn for reminding me that we are sane while they are...inane.
-
Glenn: the media influence/don't influence election results
Glenn on Monday:
Their [journalists'] predictions (i.e., preferences and love affairs) so plainly drive their press coverage -- the candidates they love are lauded as likely winners while the ones they hate are ignored or depicted as collapsing -- which in turn influences the election in the direction they want, making their predictions become self-fulfilling prophecies.
Glenn today:
[Journalists] are chronically wrong, ill-informed, and humiliated when they do it. It would all be just as inappropriate and corrupt even if they knew what they were talking about, even if they were able to convert their wishes into outcomes.
So, are the media shaping the outcomes, or having no effect? You seem to be arguing both ways.
-
O/T @ Che
I have never seen anyting even remotely resembling that vid on your site. I'm completely baffled.
"Don't tell the joke!" WTF?
-
or if the clanked (~heh~) car rattle trap has...
baby moon rusty hubcaps...so what?
Your always welcome. I'll let the cops know your in town.
-
Matthews
. . . is a douchebag.
-
Media Shame
Along with the juvenile, sensationalistic slant on the campaign coverage, what about the “experts” they have on to discuss their garbage?
It seems almost impossible to imagine such a thing as a disgraced Republican politician or pundit in the eyes of the media.
They call on Tom DeLay (indicted for money laundering, has ties to Jack Abramoff, the Terri Schiavo fiasco, the K Street Project, etc.) to share his invaluable insights. Pat Robertson (who called for the assassination of the President of Venezuela, wants to detonate a "small nuke" at Foggy Bottom, said Ariel Sharon's stroke was God's retribution, agreed feminists and gays were responsible for 9/11, repeatedly claims God is literally speaking to him, etc), Ann Coulter (openly wished the NY Times building was blown up, is an egregious plagiarist, called John Edwards a “faggot”, etc.), Bill Bennett (hypothesized reducing crime by aborting black babies, blew millions on a gambling addiction, etc.), G Gordon Libby, Dick Morris, Bil Kristol, etc., etc., etc.
Not only is there no shame in WHAT they discuss, but there’s also no shame in WHO they discuss it with - provided their politics are rightwing.
-
polls
Thank you Glenn. You always say everything I think but can never articulate as quickly as you can write. But I have to say it occurred to me that in Ohio when all the exit polls predicted a Kerry win, I thought it was tampered machines--not the exit polls. Is anyone thinking that here?
-
Hysteria ain't History
My favorite BS from the teevee last night: Russert and Brian Williams both proclaiming Hillary's 3% victory over Obama as "modern political history in the making".
Uh, yeah, right...
What disturbs me about the wild swinging of the Democratic pendulum over the past week, is that as usual, it's all a polemical smokescreen. Don't believe in the "emotion" behind Hillary's "meltdown"? You're a crass, cynical sexist.
I've been a Clinton fan for fifteen years, since I worked on the 1992 campaign. But I see Hillary's campaign as pure hubris, and the veneer of charisma disguising the former First Couple's narcissism is wearing quite thin for me. "I listened to you, and found my own voice." PLEASE. (FYI, all you demographers, I'm a college-educated white female over 40...)
As for the snark factor in the newsroom, are you kidding me? The culture of journalism is built on deep foundations of snark. This is not a criticism, just an observation.
Is the punditocracy shallow? Certainly. Are the polls ridiculous, arbitrary, unreliable? Of course. And it is not too much to expect the media to delve more deeply, and to do actual analysis, real reporting, which is seriously lacking here in the Idiocracy. But don't feign shock and awe at a clique of newspeople gathered around a TV mocking candidates. That's status quo at every level of the news pyramid. Just think twice before you believe what you read.
-
@ Jestaplero
So, are the media shaping the outcomes, or having no effect? You seem to be arguing both ways.
I read Glenn as observing that the media tries to influence the electorate with their own bias and preference more often than just report the facts. And Glenn points out that more often than not, they are completely wrong. They have managed to do it on occasion. They had much of the country eager for war with Iraq. The was a case where the influence and bias worked and was also completely wrong.
-
Glenn
you are the master of a new anti-spin, anti-drudge, anti-media universe--this universe you have created refreshingly resembles, dare I say it, REALITY! Where people actually have memories and are concerned about society as a whole.
Your existience, I believe, will in the end prove their collective downfall. I mean who has time to listen to their crap? If you do, then get a life.
How about a new network for these idiots--like CCCC--continous crappy content channel. May we lock them all in a room until they eat each other.
-
Obama, Hillary tie: Nobody really "won," Glenn
Last night in New Hampshire, they finished 9-9, Hillary and Barack. Absolutely tied. They each won nine delegates. That's the only number that matters. The popular-vote margin is the most irrelevant statistic imaginable.
But the most irrelevant statistic imaginable -- expressed as the 39-37 percent popular vote margin of Hillary's victory over Obama -- is not only the favored statistic of our news media, it's apparently the favored statistic of every blogger and blog reader as well.
I think that makes us worse than the pundits. It certainly makes us no better.
Supposedly, the pundits are there to help us understand the political process better. They fail miserably because they inflate the importance of such bullshit as the popular vote margins in primary elections.
Supposedly, blogs exist because pundits have failed so miserably. And of course, we've come to inflate our virtue because we believe we haven't failed as miserably as the pundits.
But, here we are, taking our attention off the only relevant statistic from last night -- the 9-9 tie -- and marveling over the most irrelevant statistic imaginable: Hillary's percentage popular vote margin over Obama.
Sheesh.