Olbermann's Hot News

[jaysunb]

"Keith is a refreshing change from most of the coverage of civil liberties since 9/11," says Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor and frequent guest on Olbermann's show. "Reporters tend to view these fights in purely political terms, so the public gets virtually no substantive analysis. As long as two people disagree, reporters treat it as an even debate. They won't say that the overwhelming number of constitutional and national security experts say this is an unlawful program--they'll just say experts disagree. It's extremely misleading."


http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061218/eviatar

[aquart]

1. It's DELIBERATELY misleading.

Can we all stop being disingenuous?

[EstimatedProphet]

2. Yes it is. It's by design.

[jaysunb]

3. It always is....

and they know it. :evilfrown:

[Nevernose]

4. Why do they call him eccentric?

It was, overall, a pretty good article, but why do they describe him as "eccentric?"

Has he hired a tutor to teach his cats Swedish? Does he wear wooden clogs because all other footwear is the Mark of Satan? What, precisely, do they mean by "eccentric?"

[Clark2008]

6. Because he believes in the US Constitution.

:shrug:

[orpupilofnature57]

7. Reflects on MSM types like Russert the Evil Elf ,who only feign..

...being information oriented as opposed to rhetoric and spin.

[calimary]

5. That's EXACTLY what they do. They'll note thus-and-such position

by thus-and-such side (usually republi-CON first, and with the most camera time spent or the most column inches in the piece), and then note that the opposition disagrees. There! They thus pronounce themselves satisfied that they've covered both sides! Wow.

I remember - just one VERY small example, when CNN goldilocks Kelly Wallace covered, I believe, the beginnings of the bribery scandal of Abramoff and Company. She was VERY careful to point out (in her zeal to be truly "fair and balanced") that Democrats had taken bribes, too. Which was extremely misleading. Okay, fine, maybe some of them did. But to portray it as on some sort of equal footing with the outlandishly lopsided largess that the republi-CONS enjoyed from Abramoff, it was like comparing a brick to a grain of aquarium gravel. She NEVER made the distinction in her report. But I'm sure she felt that she had touched on both sides of the issue/scandal/story. I find reporters like Kelly Wallace offensive. Twinkies put on camera because somebody thinks they photograph well. Never mind whatever brains or objectivity or reasoning or analytical skills may OR MAY NOT be behind the face. I don't see her on that frequently anymore. Which is nice.

[jaysunb]

8. After a while they start believing they're really journalist.

Tweety can't help himself when he mentions corruption by the repubs, to mention "that guy Jefferson, w/ 90k in his freezer"
I mean, WTF ? That's not the subject of the discussion, it's a diversion ! :argh:

[calimary]

9. Exactly. "That guy Jefferson" is, in fact, another grain of aquarium gravel.

Compared to the behemoths on the other side of the aisle (and SO MANY of them!) who gorged at Abramoff's pig-trough, "that guy Jefferson" doesn't even register as a blip on the map. "Ninety K"??? PITTANCE! A measly little pittance compared to the trips, the cash payoffs, the quid-pro-quo for bills passed, the big-ticket jobs and hot connections given to spouses, the vacations, the luxury jet rides, the cars, the real estate (ask randy "duke" cunningham), the repeated luxury dinners at first class restaurants, the OTHER perks that probably didn't even measure on the radar screen - like, for example, when delay and some of 'em went on that fancy golf vacation in Scotland, I seriously doubt they shelled out their own money for nice new golf clothes, golf shoes, maybe a few new clubs and other accoutrements for the golf bag, maybe new luggage, camera equipment to take pictures of their fun trip with their fun friends, maybe a whole new golf bag - since they were going to a first class joint with a bunch of big shots - one HAS TO look good, after all. That's part of how success is measured. And it wouldn't be solely for the golfer on the take, either. His wife would have to have a few new outfits and maybe some new golf stuff, too, if she played. Or, if not, certainly spending money while she and the other "li'l gals" went off sightseeing and shopping when the boys were on the links. I'd be willing to bet that not much of that came out of any of the Congressional pockets. Or if it did, Abramoff probably told them to expense it and he'd take care of the bills. I'll bet not even the tips to the skycaps and bell hops and caddies came out of anybody's personal money. And they didn't eat for cheap, either, while they were on those fancy junkets.