Should democrats boycott Morning Joke?

[Cetacea]

Remove the democratic guests and the show would be right at home on Fox. Joe beady-eyes is a phony moderate and hyper inflates every and any news event that is potentially damaging.

I suppose to ignore them and not show up would give them too much of the media bully pulpit, but it is also validating the show, no?

[Cetacea]

1. Unrec? Hmm. They really do read here.

[whistler162]

32. I thought you wanted this thread to be about

something called Morning Joke. Why don't you start a new thread instead of highjacking your own "thread".

What is Morning Joke anyway!

[Bucky]

48. No, don't you see? If we engage in childish name calling it will build support for liberal ideas!

This is how the scenario works: someone who is just starting to form their political viewpoints watches Morning Joe and starts to think "Hmmm, he sure seems to make a lot of sense..." But then one day this political newbie hears a liberal change the name to "Morning Joke" and the scales of right wing deception are lifted from his eyes!

And on top of that, you win a pony!!

[Cetacea]

53. Right....

Everyman American is going to read DU and the occasional name calling is going to have more sway than the power of television. Time to rewrite the rules of propaganda.

[Cetacea]

54. I did. It is.

Censor much?

[ErinBerin84]

2. no

Occasionally a Democrat will expose how hypocritical they all are (I agree that the most phony aspect of the show is Joe pretending to be non-partisan and above it all, when he is one of the biggest hacks around), but it does annoy me when certain Democratic "friends of the show" will just sit around like dopes and chuckle and not challenge the Repuke lies when they fly by.

[Cetacea]

3. Operative word being " Occasionally".

The setup is typical for these cable shows. Weighted heavily in favour of the right, with one lone timid democrat to fend off the group.

[DrDan]

4. absolutely not! Ridiculous - the D's are given a microphone and

you suggest boycotting because you don't care for the host?

The D's get fair treatment on that show.

[Cetacea]

6. It's not just the host.

[DrDan]

8. has any D ever been mistreated . . . or treated unfairly?

not that I have ever seen - and I watch daily.

[Cetacea]

9. Not when they are present, no.

[ShortnFiery]

11. Too funny you should mention. As soon as they depart Joe starts flinging B.S.

and snide remarks about them and other democrats. It's vile.

Democrats appearing on Morning Joe is like Chickens auditioning for Colonel Sanders. :evilgrin:

[spiritual_gunfighter]

13. The fact that you watch that republican villager circle jerk speaks volumes n/t

[DrDan]

15. oh give me a break . . . I even turn on hannity and pigboy every once in a while

that does not change my voting pattern in any way.

get real.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

21. The few times I have watched I was disgusted

the show that sticks out for me was when the entire panel basically ridiculed Anthony Weiner for even entertaining the Medicare for all idea, you obviously have a higher threshold for Villager/Republican circle jerks masquerading as bipartisan "news" programs.

[DrDan]

27. was Dean ridiculed this morning?

[spiritual_gunfighter]

22. And any "news" program

that would value the opinion of King Village Idiot Mark Halperin is a show I could never take seriously. Maybe you dont remember this nugget of wisdom from the King Village Idiot.

Mark Halperin Somehow Concludes McCain Won The Week

First Posted: 09-18-08 01:40 PM

Okay. I was alive this past week, and I couldn't help but notice that the following things occurred:

* The economy collapsed, putting McCain's party at a distinct disadvantage.
* McCain, nevertheless, said the "fundamentals of our economy are strong."
* Then he said they weren't.
* Then he said that by "economic fundamentals" he meant "workers," a definition no one else in the world uses.
* McCain's response initially was a big government approach to fighting greed.
* Followed by a small government approach to fighting regulation.
* Prominent conservatives like David Brooks, Chuck Hagel and Charles Krauthammer, threw a big wet blanket on McCain for his choice to put Sarah Palin on the ticket.

*snip*

After that sort of week, one might expect that the negative poll trends that bedeviled Obama in the run out from the Republican National Convention would begin to reverse themselves. And, you know what? They have.

BUT FORGET ALL THAT. Because Mark Halperin, over at his Kooky Komic Book Of Politics, sees it differently: "Obama Closes Strong, But McCain Wins The Week." Which raises one question. Why is Mark Halperin TOTALLY BOGARTING THE PINEAPPLE EXPRESS HE'S SMOKING?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/18/mark-halperin-somehow-con_n_127512.html

[Cetacea]

25. Oiy vey.

[DrDan]

28. so you also reject the palin claims halperin has made?

[spiritual_gunfighter]

30. I think anything Halperin reports

is suspect. Do you believe his reports that Bill Clinton said that "a few years ago Barack Obama would be fetching me coffee"?

[DrDan]

33. I can see him saying that - but not in a disparaging manner - more that

there are opportunities for everyone. Is that any different than what he has always said when speaking of minority rights and opportunities?

[spiritual_gunfighter]

34. I am just saying that Halperin's reporting is suspect

I believe he has an agenda to discredit Dems. based on the inane things he says on Morning Joe and This Week. The Harry Reid thing was obviously true because Reid copped to it. I will be interested to see how President Clinton responds to the accusation. I dont trust Halperin is all I am saying.

[DrDan]

39. not to trust is wise . . . but I would not reject what he has to say

until denied by those accused. His pocketbook is dependent on the validity of his writing.

[CTyankee]

42. I very much doubt Bill Clinton will bother to respond. He would be foolish to.

He and the other Dems should let this thing just peter out, as it will...

[DrDan]

44. I agree

[Cetacea]

17. snap. wrong respondee.

[ShortnFiery]

10. If our democratic representatives had "a clue" they would not support the show by

appearing as guests. THEY KNOW how much their values are trashed by the regulars. Shame on all of them for giving the vile characters Joe S. and Pat B. a venue to spew their propaganda. Mika? Well, IMO, she's just shameful and useless. A very poor example of an independent woman journalist with all that preening and posing pouty and sexy for the camera.

The entire show is "a joke" and it blows my mind why any self-respecting democrat would agree to appear with those shameless media whores. :puke:

[DrDan]

14. so just give the R's 100% of the microphone? The D's are treated fairly when they are on

ridiculous not to show up and get the mic for a while.

[ShortnFiery]

19. No, MSNBC would catch on and modify their show. eom

[Orsino]

29. Every viewer is another excuse for MSNBC to keep financing Joe's bullshit.

No one who doesn't worship Big Money ought to be watching.

[DrDan]

31. oh give me a break - all of these shows are about money -

if you reject any show not focused on viewers (read money), then your TV is off.

That interest in money is not limited to MSNBC.

[Orsino]

36. That is more or less my point...

...and is the reason why my TV is indeed off.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

35. Which is why I refuse to watch that trash

It only enables MSNBC to continue that disgusting villager parade. In my opinion Morning Joe is the worst thing on cable news. With Fox you know what you are getting, with Morning Joe you have liberals tuning in thinking it is a valid news source.

[DrDan]

40. good point - nothing "valid" about Dean appearance this morning

was there . . .

[spiritual_gunfighter]

41. What about "I dont watch that trash" did you not understand n/;t

[ShortnFiery]

5. Yes, I don't know why any self-described democrat much less a liberal one would ...

lower themselves to watch Mourning Ho-Jo? :shrug:

[Cetacea]

7. Sometimes I like to get the talking points of the day. And get the pulse

of our lovely media.

[ShortnFiery]

12. Thanks. I appreciate that you, et. al., can watch so many of us don't have too.

I haven't watched for at least six months and my life is much more enjoyable. I end up yelling at the TV screen and making my children nervous. :silly:

[Cetacea]

18. I know. It's a bit masochistic of me. I only watch when there is a F.U.

eg,Reid

[DrDan]

16. and I just don't know why anyone would care about the listening choices of others

I would think a liberal/progressive would be above that.

[ShortnFiery]

20. When it's all right wing and/or corporate Propaganda all of the time, there's no

FUNCTION to this show. As soon as the guest leaves the set, the DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN begins.

It's sheer BUNK! :puke:

[DrDan]

26. so Dean's appearance was "bunk" - interesting . . .

[ShortnFiery]

55. It served no greater purpose than to give clout to the prima donna hosts. eom

[CTyankee]

43. I used to watch to see some of their saner guests, but today's show was so

obviously "loaded" to just get the Democrats that I see the wisdom of your statement. I will say that I turn it after the drift settles in and I saw this coming. However, GMA was obnoxious in its own way so that was the end of the TV watching for this morning...

[stray cat]

23. I don't see many politicians refusing publicity or a place to campaign free

[LWolf]

24. I've never tuned in to begin with.

To any tv or radio talk show.

Why should I?

[KharmaTrain]

37. Bingo...

My time is precious to waste time watching or listening to asshats...especially partisan ones.

While it's been said it's good to know what the other side has to say to counter their lies and spin...but these low-rated dirtbags aren't worth it.

I have the headphones on with some fine music playing...makes starting the day a lot easier. Just cause they live in a parallel universe, I don't have to pay attention to it.

[The_Commonist]

38. Some of us already do...

You know, those shows are designed to make you crazy.
That is their sole purpose.
To make you upset.
That way you salve the pain of being alive with the latest product from their sponsors.
Those shows are not meant to inform, but to obfuscate.
You do realize that, don't you?

[UTUSN]

45. K&R big #5 for, luckily nobody (except us) watches msGEnbc.

Yeah, they are on a binge of this-one and that-one should resign---REID, CLINTON, everybody. Over that blasted gossip book.

[Tom Rinaldo]

46. I like the show. I wish it had a Liberal host, but it doesn't. I deal with it.

There are no hidden biases on Morning Joe, everyone is pretty outfront about where they are coming from, and you can take it or leave it. But it is just about the only show on mainstream TV other than MSNBC's evening line up where guests who are clearly left of center are routinely invited onto, and where they are actually allowed to make their argument and their case in full. That is frigging rare on TV.

In many cases I actually feel greater informed as a result of watching the discussions on Morning Joe, and that startling occurance is even rarer than being able to watch a left of center guest show up for a 45 second sound bite on one of the few mainstream media shows that allow it.

First off, because of the format and the length of the show, discussions on Morning Joe aren't cut off after 90 seconds which makes a huge difference. Someone like Howard Dean or Barbara Boxer can actually come across as a real and warm human being who gets to provide the context that s/he wants their comments to be understood inside of. Plus some of the authors and such who come onto that show actually have something worthy to contribute to my awareness.

Sure Joe pisses me off sometimes, but he isn't saying anything that isn't being rammed down our throats everywhere else on the media all of the time anyway. At least the left gets some real representation on his show and he almost always treats all of his guests with respect. The content being broadcast on Morning Joe that isn't just the same old same old, is almost always the liberal perspective that rarely gets aired anywhere else anymore. That is worth putting up with some repeated pablum crap to get out there.

Beyond that I find it useful to absorb the right of center world view articulated by Joe coming from someone who isn't a total whack job like Rush or Beck. It helps me pin point where and why Democrats are likely to come under attack in ways that might actually sway swing voters. I can sit through a Scarborough rant to get a handle on how issues are framed by the right and figure out how to respond effectively as a result. I find watching FOX to be unbearable and I think that it is a strategic weakness to not pay close attention to how your adversaries are attempting to influence the public

[Bucky]

47. How do you get "phony moderate"? Scarborough always calls himself a conservative.

Anyway, refusing to participate in an important argument just because you disagree with the person you're arguing with is a pretty good working definition of "dumb".

Don't be surprised by your unrec count. Your suggestion is self defeating.

[Cetacea]

49. dupe

[Cetacea]

50. Hey there scout. He says he's fair.

He trashes dems when they are not present. He trashes them when they are there as well but wimpy dems are another matter.

If you can't see him and his show for what it is I cannot help you. Unrec all you want to. :hi:

[otohara]

51. Out Here In The West - We're Still Sleeping

by the time I wake up at 7ish - he and Mika Mouse are already gone and we're grateful!

[Cetacea]

52. lol

Mika mouse.