Try, Try Again?

Peter Boyer has a pretty solid profile of Keith Olberman and how he has and continues to change the cable broadcasting universe. But this paragraph about the response to Olbermann's first "special commentary" bothered me:

His bosses loved it. “I think we’re onto something,” the president of NBC News, Steve Capus, told me. “That’s what we keep hearing from the audience, more and more, is that they appreciate that we have people who are actually speaking truth to power, or being transparent in their own personal viewpoints.” That’s another way of saying that liberals, after many failed attempts, seem finally to have found their own Bill O’Reilly. Fox News still dominates the cable competition, and MSNBC over all continues to lag behind second-place CNN. O’Reilly’s audience is more than twice as big as Olbermann’s, which airs in the same prime-time period. But Olbermann’s ratings grew by nearly seventy-five per cent the year he began doing Special Comments, and the show is making money, a rare hit in MSNBC’s twelve-year run. “All of a sudden, he took off,” Griffin says. “In ways that MSNBC never had a show take off.”

How many failed attempts were there, exactly? My recollection of the relevant history is that first O'Reilly was successful. Then, because you're not allowed to put liberals on television, networks responded to his success by putting more conservatives on. Then someone at MSNBC had the crazy idea of giving Phil Donohue a show. Then Donohue's show became MSNBC's most popular program. At which point MSNBC canceled it because you're not allowed to put liberals on television. Some time after that, MSNBC put Keith Olbermann on intending, as Boyer reports, for his show to be a “newscast of record." Then, by accident, Olbermann started doing some liberal stuff. And it was successful, which based on the track record (one effort to put a liberal on cable and his show became the network's highest-rated program) is exactly what you would expect.

Meanwhile, I was watching This Week on ABC yesterday morning for the first time in a while, and I was surprised to see Robert Reich on their panel 'o pundits since, after all, you're not allowed to put liberals on television. Then they panned out and I saw that the panel also included Torie Clarke and George WIll, thus granting ABC amnesty under the "unless they're outnumbered two to one" exception to the "no liberals on television" rule.

Comments

You should not post things that you do not believe.

It comes close to lying.

If you constantly write posts of this kind, you will not be taken seriously.

Posted by bluesmoke | June 16, 2008 11:33 AM

Another problem with that paragraph is that speaking truth to power and being transparent in your own personal viewpoints doesn't make you a left version of Bill O'Reilly.

Posted by Robbie | June 16, 2008 11:34 AM

Yep. Not allowed to put liberals on television. You know, other than every news anchor and host on every station other than Fox. You know, other than Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, Katie Couric, Tim Russert (RIP), Chris Matthews, George Stephanopoulos, Anderson Cooper, Wolf Blitzer, every person on 60 Minutes, Bob Schieffer, blah, blah, blah.

Posted by Al | June 16, 2008 11:35 AM

I thought Donohue was cancelled because he raped someone.

Posted by matt | June 16, 2008 11:36 AM

Robert Reich "Liberal"

Posted by seth edenbaum | June 16, 2008 11:42 AM

Maybe a more accurate description of what Matt is saying is that "no people on TV who regularly espouse and advocate for liberal viewpoints." Of Al's list, I bet half or more are probably "liberals" personally, but certainly few if any of them advocate liberal policies. In fact, most bend over backwards to take into account conservative viewpoints lest they be tarred as part of the "liberal media." On top of them, if they're liberal, they're liberal like the WaPo editorial board is. (ie, not really).

Posted by Goldberg | June 16, 2008 11:43 AM

Um, no. Phil said something about the unseemliness of the rush to war in Iraq, and they canned him.

Al, are you for real? All of those people you listed are at best faux liberals ("I'm not a liberal, but I play one on TV") most are outright conservatives.

Posted by Geeno | June 16, 2008 11:43 AM

Olberman is so pathetically pretentious and self-absorbed. ugh.

Olberman uses his program to display his vocab.

Posted by thehova | June 16, 2008 11:43 AM

No, rape--esp by public officials--seem more a Republican crime.

Posted by tom | June 16, 2008 11:43 AM

Wow, Al, you're saying that Joe Scarborough, Tucker Carlson, and Pat Buchanan of MSNBC and Lou Dobbs, Glenn Beck, and Nancy Grace of CNN are all liberals? They'll be shocked to discover that.

Posted by TR | June 16, 2008 11:44 AM

Is Al being serious? I would have thought that one of the advantages to having an honest online discourse on media would be that people would be able to recognize the difference between beltway power-whores and liberals.

Posted by NSinNY | June 16, 2008 11:45 AM

I'm tired of all these liberals on Fox News and the Rush Limbaugh EIB network. Our media has always been dominated by communists and Islamo-femarchists, as has been the case underneath many beds in which I have slept. They keep waiting for me to give up, but I don't.

Posted by El Cid | June 16, 2008 11:48 AM

No liberals on television? Is that some kind of joke. Just off the top of my head, here are some prominent liberals who are on mainstream television all the time:

Arianna Huffington
Al Hunt
Mark Shields
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Alan Colmes
Jamal Simmons
Ed Schultz
Lawrence Martin
Bill Maher
Jon Stewart
James Carville
Paul Begala
Bob Shrum
Dorris Kearns Goodwin

That was that off the top of my head, I'm sure others could at least triple that list.

Posted by Tim K | June 16, 2008 11:49 AM

Al's just playing the old "working the refs" angle that has been discredited for years. He doesn't really believe that crap, but if you paint centrists and center-right moderates as leftists, then you can try to make the claim that Bill O'Reilly is really middle-of-the-road, instead of the McCarthyite right-wing douchebag that he is.

And Bluesmoke? I can almost guarantee that no one takes you more seriously than they do Matt. In fact, considering your post, I doubt anyone takes you seriously at all.

Posted by Singularity | June 16, 2008 11:55 AM

Al has a long and trollish history over at Kevin Drum's site, Washington Monthly. You'd do yourself a favor to simply ignore him.

Posted by moe99 | June 16, 2008 11:56 AM

Al has a long and trollish history over at Kevin Drum's site, Washington Monthly. You'd do yourself a favor to simply ignore him.

Posted by moe99 | June 16, 2008 11:57 AM

Al has a long and trollish history over at Kevin Drum's site, Washington Monthly. You'd do yourself a favor to simply ignore him.

Posted by moe99 | June 16, 2008 11:58 AM

Wow, Al, you're saying that Joe Scarborough, Tucker Carlson, and Pat Buchanan of MSNBC and Lou Dobbs, Glenn Beck, and Nancy Grace of CNN are all liberals? They'll be shocked to discover that.

Good point. Joe Scarborogh and Tucker Carlson are appointed to the bizarro-Alan Combes position on MSNBC. So I'll grant you two conservative stooges - put on the network for the sole purpose of making conservatives look weak and idiotic.

Posted by Al | June 16, 2008 11:59 AM

"Is Al being serious?"

I can kind of see Al's point. In the world of Al, being less foaming at the mouth than O'Reilly automatically qualifies someone as "liberal".

When your baseline is Hell, even 100 degrees qualifies as 'cool'.

Posted by leo | June 16, 2008 12:01 PM

yes, Al Hunt's a true progressive hero.

/please stop

Posted by cha cha cha | June 16, 2008 12:03 PM

Tim K

Leaving aside the question of whether your list contains any actual liberals, only two of those names (Stewart and Maher) have their own shows, and both are comedians rather than journalists. Colmes is only there to be Hannity's punching bag.

Posted by jimBOB | June 16, 2008 12:06 PM

I think we're talking about different things here. I don't think anyone is saying that Katie Couric, for example, doesn't vote Democratic, rather she isn't on tv night after night advocating from a liberal perspective.

Posted by matt | June 16, 2008 12:13 PM

I'd say Tim K's list makes Matthew's point nicely.

Posted by Leo | June 16, 2008 12:13 PM

Al, absolutely none of the people you listed are 'liberals,' they are corporate hack highly paid PR people.

Three issues:
1. The Iraq War
2. Universal Healthcare
3. Cutting taxes for the rich.

Everyone you listed (with the exception of Matthews, who I do believe is a closet liberal but usually doesn't act on his feelings/beliefs) takes the conservative position on the issues I list above.

Even more interestingly, those conservative positions are the MINORITY positions. Every single top-line beltway hack happens to share conservative positions on issues that are relatively unpopular with the public.

Gee, I wonder why that is.

Posted by mike | June 16, 2008 12:14 PM

To be a guest on Olbermann's show, one must first recite 100 times, with proper unctousness, the signature phrase of the "Countdown" guest......"That's right, Keith". This is no endorsement of Olbermann's competition, who I also can't stand, but what Olbermann and O'Reilly have in common is a seething insecurity which makes them both unwatchable. This goes for Matthews and many others of course, whereas guys like Hannity just strike me a being sorta' stupid. Why anyone watches these shows regularly is mystifying. I wasn't the biggest Russert fan, but compared to these basket cases, he was a regular Alexis de Tocqueville.

Posted by Will Allen | June 16, 2008 12:14 PM

Donna Brazille(sp?) is on ABC's This Week almost every week.

Posted by Kolohe | June 16, 2008 12:15 PM

Always remember:

Before former RNC Chair Roger Ailes was tapped by right-wing media mogul Rupert Murdoch to start FOX News, he was tapped by right-wing media mogul Jack Welch (who owned NBC via GE) to remake NBC's news division to his own ideological specifications.

That should tell you all you need to know right there.

Posted by Phoenix Woman | June 16, 2008 12:17 PM

Olbermann is not even really a partisan. He just despises, for cause, the breathtakingly awful Bush Administration - like most Americans - and its ex-rubber stamp congress. Yes, he is a bit schtick-ish, but the outrage is real; he's a liberal in the sense that Ike was, or in the sense that *anybody* is who is, in fact, *not* a GOP partisan. The 'left' (such as it is) doesn't have an O'Reilly, and I hope it doesn't get one. O'Reilly is not a political guy so much as a Professional Asshole who, along with FNC, saw that we lived in a time (Nixonland - decadent phase) when enough people found it somehow entertaining to watch someone be a really gigantic asshole, and that he/they could make some serious coin on OReilly's bad nature. BTW, I believe KO recently beat Bill-O 'in demo' (adults 25-54), so Boyer is off there, too. Viewers 12+ - the demo BillO is still winning - matters, but is not the number to watch.

The left has some O'Reillys in the blogosphere (eg Taylor Marsh), but thankfully none on tv.

Posted by jonnybutter | June 16, 2008 12:17 PM

jimBob is right. Maher is on late-night HBO (after getting fired from network TV for being unpatriotic or something), Stewart hosts a satirical news show that has stumbled upon relevance by virtue of the deterioration and incompetence of the "real" news organizations, and Alan Colmes is Hannity's neutered plaything on the most blatantly biased news network in America.

Posted by tinisoli | June 16, 2008 12:17 PM

It's a delicate balancing act between attracting ratings (liberal, popular, anti-wealth positions) and espousing a pro-wealth/corporate message (unpopular).

Imagine a Nader/Michael Moore show (bear with me), if such a show garnered say 10% more ratings, the rise in ad revenue would not be sufficient to offset the overall damage to the general pro-corporate message.

Posted by mike | June 16, 2008 12:22 PM

Am I terribly confused, or didn't Tim K, helpfully seen above parroting easily dispatched and irrelevant winger talking points, pretend to be a Hillary Clinton supporter through the long primary battle? I guess that divisive angle is past, so it's back to his regularly scheduled trolling.

And, to reiterate what others have said in response to Al and to Tim K: there's a difference between anchors who do, and anchors who do not, strongly advocate for their personal beliefs. There is a difference between frequent panelists and hosts. Furthermore, on this latter point, there have been studies (by FAIR, for example), looking into the panel composition; and there are the reports from Phil Donohoue about when he was the only liberal hosting an opinionated show on the cable news. The slanting of the panels towards conservatives, and the "balancing" of conservatives with nonpartisan reporters and experts, is reality. It is not a matter of opinion.

Posted by Warren Terra | June 16, 2008 12:24 PM

The terms "liberal" and "conservative" are too vague to be useful, but it is disingenuous to ignore the number of talking heads who slant or slanted towards the Democratic party. Good grief, Dan Rather, whose audience dwarfed all the cable shows combined, was so in the tank for the Democrats that it was almost funny. Sheesh, the guy finally got canned for running a story on Bush that any high school freshmen could tell wasn't properly sourced. It was as if R. Emmett Tyrell was an anchor on one of the big three newscasts during the Clinton Administration.

Posted by Will Allen | June 16, 2008 12:25 PM

"""
Yep. Not allowed to put liberals on television. You know, other than every news anchor and host on every station other than Fox. You know, other than Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, Katie Couric, Tim Russert (RIP), Chris Matthews, George Stephanopoulos, Anderson Cooper, Wolf Blitzer, every person on 60 Minutes, Bob Schieffer, blah, blah, blah.
"""

Where do I start:

1. Dan Rather is no longer at CBS.
2. Couric is a dork, and is as apolitical as you can get. Calling her a liberal is ridiculous, unless by liberal you mean anyone not to the right of Attila the Hun (oh, that's right, that's exactly what you mean)
3. Matthews is a right-of-center moderate, not a liberal. Watch his show once in a while...
4. Schieffer and Blitzer are moderate conservatives.
5. Stephanopoulos is a conservative Democrat, a DLCer through and through (few liberals would consider DLCers to be liberal).

etc... etc... etc...

Problem is, you define liberal as "Not Fox". So obviously, to you, anything "Not Fox" is liberal, by definition. That's like saying that Billy Graham is an atheist, because he's not the Pope...

Posted by DR | June 16, 2008 12:28 PM

For the love of ...her name isn't Tori Clarke anymore than it is the Sincere Squint of Concern that fools people into thinking she's listening to your point ...

Her Name is Victoria Clarke and after she stopped Lying as a matter of profession for the Pentagon ( a sort of squinty toady to Rumsfeld...she's so non-partisan) she vanished and returned in a hail of marketing and image make over as Tori Clarke, Sqintingly Concerned with New Hair ...noooo, it wasn't me B.S.ing you all nightly from the 5 sided building, it was VicToria , some other lying squinter...

If she becomes Madge and TMZ follow her to her car will everyone nod and start calling her Madge?

Doesn't anyone notice ?

A brief glimpse at her Wiki page is a sort of Resume/ Indictment in one.

Posted by A.Scott | June 16, 2008 12:28 PM

Joe Scarborogh and Tucker Carlson are... two conservative stooges - put on the network for the sole purpose of making conservatives look weak and idiotic.

Al made a funny. Yes, they do look idiotic. I guess that's MSNBC's fault, isn't it? Do the rightwing stooges on every other channel make conservatives look strong? Bwa ha ha. Mr Bow Tie and 'Regular Joe' are on to hedge the network's bets, of course. MSNBC would give Franco (were he not still dead) a show if it made them money.

I'm kinda with Will Allen (although I don't think Bill-O and KO are terribly comparable): why watch any of these people? Waste of time.

Posted by jonnybutter | June 16, 2008 12:29 PM

I think Matt already made it clear that liberal pundits can appear on TV under the "unless they're outnumbered two to one" exception.

But I would suggest the deeper problem is that both "conservative" and "liberal" pundits are being selected (or I might say "cast") to support pre-conceived narratives (e.g., we are doing a segment on gay marriage--get me a conservative who thinks traditional families are important and a liberal who thinks people should be allowed to live however they want!; we need a conservative columnist--check to make sure he supports wars and torture!; and so on). And if a "conservative" or "liberal" says or writes something off-script, they are deemed unreliable representatives of their designated side, which means they risk losing their pundit licenses.

Posted by DTM | June 16, 2008 12:31 PM

Good grief, Dan Rather, whose audience dwarfed all the cable shows combined...

And he got fired for it, Will.

Meanwhile, Hume and Company have kept their jobs.

Posted by tinisol | June 16, 2008 12:32 PM

I thought Phil Donahue was canned due to a sexual harassment lawsuit. Maybe that was someone else. Who wasn't canned.

Posted by An Outhouse | June 16, 2008 12:33 PM

"""
Donna Brazille(sp?) is on ABC's This Week almost every week.
"""

Donna Brazile is typically there as a representative of the Democratic Party, and is rarely is ever alone. She's usually paired with a representative of the Republican Party in a he-says, she-says game.

Posted by DR | June 16, 2008 12:34 PM

There was a time when Reich was a guest host who filled in for O'Reilly, but I guess he threatened the sheep.

Posted by Rich | June 16, 2008 12:34 PM

Until Bush's ratings went into the toilet, liberal hosts/anchors got fired if they made a mistake or if they simply appeared to far to the left of Johnny Nascar and the "salt-of-the-Earth" regular folks that everyone from Matthews to O'Reilly covets. Now that Bush is on the way out and the nation is leaning Dem/Left, Olbermann is given the green light and maybe a few others (Maddow?) will be too. Either way, the Beck/O'Reilly contingent still outweighs its liberal equivalent by an order of magnitude.

Posted by tinisoli | June 16, 2008 12:37 PM

Tim K:

Other than the two comedians who have their own shows (which has been highlighted by other commenters), there is something else which all the people you name have in common:

They are almost never seen on television without one (ideally two) conservative counterparts.

How many times does Matthews (supposedly a liberal, according to conservatives) have Pat Buchanan alone to comment on a news story? How many times does he bring on Rachel Maddow alone? (that last question is easy: she's NEVER allowed to be alone, except on Countdown; they're scared ****less of her!).

Posted by DR | June 16, 2008 12:38 PM

I don't like Olbermann because I feel like I need a dictionary at hand to understand what he's trying to say sometimes. Talking down to people isn't helping anything and it's high on the list of how the other side gets people to vote against themselves.

Posted by Juandostres | June 16, 2008 12:39 PM

An Outhouse:

That was BillO... and he was obviously NOT canned...

Donahue was canned because he dared be against the war. Period. (And it's very well documented).

Posted by DR | June 16, 2008 12:41 PM

No, tinisol, that's a dishonest assertion. He was fired because his Texas Air National Guard story was pathetic and embarassing, and because he was losing big to NBC's and ABC's evening newscasts, although still dwarfing cable show audiences. It cannot be ignored, however, that he had one of the three huge evening news audiences for about 25 years, while openly being a shill for the Democratic Party. Peter Jennings wasn't much better. Brokaw is mostly a Democrat, it seems plain, but he wasn't nearly as obvious about it in the way the other two guys were. These newscasts had audiences so much larger than the cable shows that it is ridiculous to put them in the same category. Couric is obviously a Democrat. Williams very likely is, although he is more in the Brokaw mode. I don't have an opinion on ABC, since I haven't seen it enough.

Posted by Will Allen | June 16, 2008 12:42 PM

I think he meant you're not allowed to "BE" a liberal on TV, and Olberman is pulling it off.

Tell me Brokaw pulls it off, being a real lefty on canmera behind that desk. Or Katie. Maybe Brokaw did, but so did Donahue, and where are they these days?

context people. Read for the context.

Posted by mdh | June 16, 2008 12:43 PM

I don't like Olbermann because I feel like I need a dictionary at hand to understand what he's trying to say sometimes.

Ronald Reagan on William F. Buckley: "He uses too big a words."

If I want something whose language is geared to the eighth grade level, I'll read the New York Times.

Posted by Tyro | June 16, 2008 12:44 PM

ahem - "...maybe Rather and Donahue did..."

Posted by mdh | June 16, 2008 12:46 PM

No liberals on television? Is that some kind of joke.

OK the 'no liberals' claim was over the top, but your list doesn’t prove much.

For starters I don't know who Jamal Simmons, Ed Schultz, Lawrence Martin are, and watch cable news pretty regularly.

Colmes is a right wing flunky.

Bill Maher isn't really a liberal, he's a libertarian. (And he got kicked network television so he even if he was a liberal he certainly backs up the idea that Liberals aren’t allowed television.)

Doris Kearns Goodwin is usually talking about something inane, or historical, rarely anything current and political.

Shields, Hunt, can talk for a long with saying anything identifiably liberal. They just sort yammer on in vague platitudes ad nauseam.

Carville and Begala are nominally liberal, but I doubt anyone seriously thinks they’re motivated by ideology. There is difference between being hostile to liberalism and hostile to the Democratic party.

Stewart isn’t on a news network.

Posted by Christopher Colaninno | June 16, 2008 12:46 PM

If you want an example of the particular bias on the teevee and MSM, look at all the shows and articles about the invasion and occupation of Iraq at the 5-year mark.

How many featured one of the many voices who opposed the whole thing from the start?

I challenge Al to name ANY prominent foreign policy pundits who were outspoken prior to the invasion.

Certainly NO ONE listed above qualifies.

Only people who were WRONG are allowed.

How much do we see the UN Inspection Team on TV? ZERO.

How often does anyone even point out that it's not a WAR, it's an occupation? Almost never.

Posted by tubino | June 16, 2008 12:47 PM

Dan Rather...finally got canned for running a story on Bush that any high school freshmen could tell wasn't properly sourced.

Yes, Dan's team improperly sourced a *true* story. My, my. Dan was probably more full of journalistic hubris than strict partisanship. But I wouldn't be surprised if he was personally offended by Bush getting a free pass - a fuckup, drunken frat boy cheering for the war at the time, but using daddy's connections to get out of actually going. Rather covered that war 'in theatre', as you might remember, so he knew lots of young men who weren't so lucky, and knew what that war was like. I'm offended by that too, BTW. Why *any* conservative isn't is beyond me.

Problem is, you define liberal as "Not Fox". So obviously, to you, anything "Not Fox" is liberal, by definition. That's like saying that Billy Graham is an atheist, because he's not the Pope...

Well put, DR. Something like that. The GOP trick is to accuse their opposition of what they themselves are most guilty of: borderline-treason, putting party above country/partisanship, economic amorality, etc etc. Works really really well. All radical insurgents do that.

Posted by jonnybutter | June 16, 2008 12:47 PM

Hey thehova -- Keith O. doesn't use any words I'm unfamiliar with at all. Perhaps instead of ripping someone for properly using the English language, you should work on your vocabulary.

Posted by Chup, Bryan, TX | June 16, 2008 12:48 PM

Kos is included on panels now and then, and for a while, Ezra Klein was invited on Hardball, but they are few and far between, unless you count Eugene Robinson, Eleanor Cliff, and Clarence Page.

Posted by Rich | June 16, 2008 12:50 PM

Good grief, when the day has arrived that Olbermann's intellect is viewed as significantly above the median, our standards realy have slid into the abyss. Olbermann is a perfect example of a guy who is scared stiff by the notion that he isn't half as smart as he tries to appear, because the notion is well-founded.

Posted by Will Allen | June 16, 2008 12:50 PM

If you want an example of the particular bias on the teevee and MSM, look at all the shows and articles about the invasion and occupation of Iraq at the 5-year mark.

How many featured one of the many voices who opposed the whole thing from the start? They were heavily loaded with pro-invasion people.

I challenge Al to name ANY prominent foreign policy pundits who were outspoken prior to the invasion. Outspoken = now invisible. Friedman-style support of war = welcome all over.

Certainly NONE of hte prominent people listed above as "liberal" qualifies as outspoken about the war.

Only people who were WRONG are allowed.

How much do we see the UN Inspection Team on TV? ZERO.

How often does anyone even point out that it's not a WAR, it's an occupation? Almost never.

Posted by tubino | June 16, 2008 12:54 PM

Will Allen:

it is disingenuous to ignore the number of talking heads who slant or slanted towards the Democratic party

It's also disingenuous to ignore the vastly larger number of talking heads who slant towards the Republicans. CNN, for example, is overwhelmingly conservative, although they are of a more "moderate" kind of conservatism (more at ease in a Boardroom than at a Klan meeting). There are a few liberals sprinkled here and there (Begala, for example), but there are no liberal hosts, and very few liberal commentators. There are actually more liberals on Fox than on CNN (although they are usually not allowed to complete a sentence).

But it seems the Right cannot bear a single liberal to be seen. Certainly, there can't be a single liberal hosting a show.

As an aside: Matthews once nearly peed himself with glee while telling the story of standing in a line of journalists waiting to have their pictures taken with Bush, describing it as equivalent to kids waiting to see Santa. WOW! How Liberal Of Him!

Posted by DR | June 16, 2008 12:54 PM

Johnybutter, there is no mitigation in using false evidence to "prove" something, no matter how earnestly you believe the something to be true.

Chrstopher, Bill Maher is about as libertarian as Nancy Pelosi.

Posted by Will Allen | June 16, 2008 12:57 PM

The thing about these stupid labels is that if still support the Constitution, which really is a bedrock conservative stance, then you are opposed to the current Republican party, and therefore are defined as a liberal.

If you believe in habeas corpus, dating in English law to 1215, and an absolutely core principle of the founding fathers, you are now a flaming liberal, in current parlance.

That's f***d up. True conservatives ought to stand for preserving, conserving, the foundations of this nation, which include distrust of govt power, and belief in the constitutional guarantees against abuse of that power.

Posted by tubino | June 16, 2008 12:59 PM

"...I don't like Olbermann because I feel like I need a dictionary at hand to understand what he's trying to say sometimes. Talking down to people isn't helping anything and it's high on the list of how the other side gets people to vote against themselves."

Talking down to people is patting them on the head and speaking slowly in small words...using a vocabulary to be precise in one's meaning is Raising the Bar of discourse, not talking down to you . Talking down to you is saying " Obama went to a Madrasssaaa...ohhh....this is HUGE!" like a cartoon of news in a bad movie.
Olberman may be theatrical in his passions, but elucidation and articulation should never be condemned just because you're done learning words.
He also bases his outrages in facts,or offers a correction when he's wrong. That alone sets him far apart from most everyone else on the teevee.

I don't remember the last time Keith Olberman Lied to my face , something I can't say about almost anyone else mentioned in these odd lists .
Everything about politics would be better were there not a need in people to leap down in expectations and love it when someone in power plays to their baser instincts .We can counter that be demanding a higher standard, and swine like John Gibson would never have sat in front of a camera in the first place

And I'm tired of being told to stop thinking by people who don't.

Posted by A.Scott | June 16, 2008 1:01 PM

Olbermann is a perfect example of a guy who is scared stiff by the notion that he isn't half as smart as he tries to appear, because the notion is well-founded.

I'd like you to attempt to back these words with evidence...

You have a right to disagree with Olbermann. But I think anyone who has read or heard one of his better Special Comments have to admit to his intelligence; or at the very least to his eloquence.

Posted by DR | June 16, 2008 1:02 PM

Irony alert: Will Allen wrote what Olbermann and O'Reilly have in common is a seething insecurity which makes them both unwatchable.

Posted by Gregory | June 16, 2008 1:04 PM

I guess framing a guilty man makes him innocent now ? O.J. will be glad to hear that. Gee, I thought conservatives loathed the idea of someone getting off on a technicality. Oh, how things have changed since the 90s. Better still, oh how things have changed since Bush has been in office.

Posted by Mickey G. | June 16, 2008 1:07 PM

DR, a host whose first requirement in a guest is overwhelmingly often that the guest be in agreement with the host is terribly insecure. Now, insecurity takes many forms; O'Reilly's takes the from of booking guests he disagrees with, and then having a disingenuous conversation in which he has the advantage. Both forms mask a well founded suspicion that the host isn't a top notch intellect. Compare with Buckley's choice of guests on "Firing Line", and the manner in which Buckely interacted with his guests.

Posted by Will Allen | June 16, 2008 1:08 PM

"Then, because you're not allowed to put liberals on television, networks responded to his success by putting more conservatives on. Then someone at MSNBC had the crazy idea of giving Phil Donohue a show."

The funy thing about this claim is that it would appear that Matthew Yglesias doesn't know why Phil Donohue was famous enough to warrant a show.

Posted by Sebastian | June 16, 2008 1:11 PM

Who actually counts as left-wing here? By the test of some people here I'm not sure Eugene Debs would fit the bill were he alive today.

Olbermann is a liberal, a host, and about as opinionated as they come. Just because they aren't particularly intelligent opinions doesn't mean he doesn't share them on a daily basis. As another example, I enjoy watching PBS' Charlie Rose. It's a program that features intelligent discussions with many articulate guests. It's obvious, however, that Rose is at least a cultural liberal, almost certainly a foreign policy liberal, and probably an economic liberal as well. Any astute observer can detect that sort of bias in questions and occasional commentary. He is also clearly enamoured with Obama. Chris Matthews and the late Tim Russert were both Democratic political operatives working for such liberals as Jimmy Carter, Pat Moynihan and Mario Cuomo. We're supposed to believe they were conservatives all along? How about host George Stephanopolous? Not a liberal either?

Posted by Tim K | June 16, 2008 1:12 PM

Reading is fundamental, Mickey G.

Gregory, as usual, you have nothing to say. other than the same old tired shtick. Your irony alerts are ironic indeed.

Posted by Will Allen | June 16, 2008 1:13 PM

Who actually counts as left-wing here? By the test of some people here I'm not sure Eugene Debs would fit the bill were he alive today.

Olbermann is a liberal, a host, and about as opinionated as they come. Just because they aren't particularly intelligent opinions doesn't mean he doesn't share them on a daily basis. As another example, I enjoy watching PBS' Charlie Rose. It's a program that features intelligent discussions with many articulate guests. It's obvious, however, that Rose is at least a cultural liberal, almost certainly a foreign policy liberal, and probably an economic liberal as well. Any astute observer can detect that sort of bias in questions and occasional commentary. He is also clearly enamoured with Obama. Chris Matthews and the late Tim Russert were both Democratic political operatives working for such liberals as Jimmy Carter, Pat Moynihan and Mario Cuomo. We're supposed to believe they were conservatives all along? How about host George Stephanopolous? Not a liberal either?

Posted by Tim K | June 16, 2008 1:16 PM

Until she corrected him, Chris Matthews thought Michelle Bernard was "left of center". I laughed out loud when he called her that.

It would take a heck of a lot of liberals to balance out the "terrorist fist jab" crazy neocons on the teevee.

Our discourse is utterly out of whack.

Posted by slag | June 16, 2008 1:17 PM

What's ironic, Will, is that your posts say more than you may intend...such as saying Olbermann is a perfect example of a guy who is scared stiff by the notion that he isn't half as smart as he tries to appear, because the notion is well-founded.

That was a howler!

As for your complaint about dishonest assertion, when argument-by-assertion -- "Katie couric is obviously a liberal! -- and nothing but is your own same old tired schtick, you break the irony meter.

Posted by Gregory | June 16, 2008 1:18 PM

When I read Al's list of "liberal" news anchors and it includes Brokaw, Couric, Blitzer and Tim Russert, I really start to realize how much damage Fox News has done to political discourse in this country. They have moved the "frame" of what's considered "center", "right" and "left" to the point that in an industry where there are maybe 15 percent liberals, it can be said that they are "all" liberals.

Al, you're just wrong.

Posted by PopeRatzo | June 16, 2008 1:26 PM

Gregory, I never wrote Katie Couric was a liberal, obvious or otherwise. In fact, I specifically wrote that the term "liberal" was not helpful in describing the people who appear on television. Sheesh, do you ever, ever, actually read the posts you supposedly are endeavoring to respond to? Do you get up in the morning, and start jabbering into the mirror in your bathroom, in response to what are apparently the dozens of voices you hear in your head? Not for the first time, I am forced to ask; just what is wrong with your brain?

Posted by Will Allen | June 16, 2008 1:28 PM

as a liberal, i read my news. broadcast "news" is so goddamn dumb and pointless and plays into the hands of conservative arguments which are solely based on snap "judgement" and emotion, not thinking and pondering. nuance is hard.

i guess this makes me an "elitist".

Posted by ron | June 16, 2008 1:30 PM

Chris Matthews and the late Tim Russert were both Democratic political operatives working for such liberals as Jimmy Carter, Pat Moynihan and Mario Cuomo. We're supposed to believe they were conservatives all along? How about host George Stephanopolous? Not a liberal either?

So many points, so many points...

1. Because someone at one time interned for some Democratic politician does not mean he/she shares his/her values or political outlook.
2. Because someone ONCE had a certain political outlook does not mean he stills has it, twenty or thirty years later. Some major conservative figures of today were once out and out communists.

Stephanopoulos has not made a single comment which can be considered liberal in years. His roster of guests, and the overall focus of his show leads me to believe that he is today a moderate conservative. Clinton had quite a few of them in his administration, you know? The DLC is full of less than liberal Democrats who feel that the Left has too much influence on the party. Stephanopoulos was one of them.

Russert (RIP) was in the Cuomo administration, BUT MTP was Cheney's favorite venue, which he considered a perfect vehicle for his propaganda. Whether he was a willing participant or not, MTP has for years been a vehicle for administration talking points, and very little else.

Matthews voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004, and was pushing both McCain and Giuliani not that long ago. Now that Giuliani is radioactive and that McCain's prospects in November are not too bright, he's decided he's on Obama's side. I'd be willing to bet a significant sum that if McCain starts leading Obama in the polls, Tweety will be back to licking McCain's boots. He's not a liberal, he's a brown-noser.

Posted by DR | June 16, 2008 1:34 PM

why watch any of these people? Waste of time.

I'd agree with this as a personal matter (we dumped our cable a while back and don't miss it at all), but the fact is the political discourse of the country is heavily influenced by these bozos, and our multitrillion dollar military gets sent over to other countries and kills tens/hundreds of thousands of people in wars they helped foment, using tax dollars we paid, or based on loans that have to be repaid with our tax dollars.

So we don't have the luxury of ignoring them no matter how ridiculous they are.

Posted by jimBOB | June 16, 2008 1:38 PM

Will, "Democrat" and "liberal" are not synonyms. While it's true that liberals are more likely to be Democrats, it is not true that the Democratic talking heads on TV are actual liberals.

Liberals, like most Americans, believe in policies that protect working people on the job - and, for that matter, create good jobs. They believe in public education. They believe in universal health care (preferably single-payer, but most would probably accept an NHS-style "socialized" medical system if the only other choice is what we have now). They believe in fair trade (not "free trade").

These are all positions that are well to the left of almost everyone who is allowed to bloviate on television, whether they have their own show or not. (And if they do believe in those policies, they know to keep their mouths shut.)

Posted by Avedon | June 16, 2008 1:38 PM

Gregory, I never wrote Katie Couric was a liberal

Correct, you wrote that she was obviously a Democrat. I wonder how you verified this assertion of yours. She's not obviously anything. If anything, I would not be surprised to find out that she hasn't voted in years.

And btw, replacing "liberal" with "Democrat" doesn't change the nature of the discussion. Except insofar as it implies that all Democrats are by definition "liberal" (which the Right keeps insisting is true), and all "liberals", Democrats.

Posted by DR | June 16, 2008 1:43 PM

Johnybutter, there is no mitigation in using false evidence to "prove" something, no matter how earnestly you believe the something to be true.

How did Bush get into the TX Air National Guard in 1968? I don't know how old you are (not that that should make a difference), but I remember well how difficult it was to get into any N'tl Guard in those days (there was a draft, Will). I'm not saying Bush is unusual among 'fortunate sons' of the time. I'm saying that Rather's story was essentially - and obviously - true. Nice of you to let him off on the kind of 'technicality' supposed Law and Order conservatives sometimes howl about.

You do have a point here, though:

Compare [Olberman and O'Reilly's] with Buckley's choice of guests on "Firing Line", and the manner in which Buckely interacted with his guests.

Yes, Buckley had much more intellectual self-confidence, no doubt (although he still had to wind up calling Gore Vidal a faggot - ah, for the good old days of trenchant argument!). He also had the self-confidence to turn against the Iraq war before he died, something for which the mob which passes for 'conservative opinion' wrote him out of the movement he started. BTW, 'Firing Line' was on when there really was a liberal bias in the media instead of a conservative one. Funny you should bring that up.

Posted by jonnybutter | June 16, 2008 1:45 PM

why watch any of these people? Waste of time.

I'd agree with this as a personal matter (we dumped our cable a while back and don't miss it at all), but the fact is the political discourse of the country is heavily influenced by these bozos, and our multitrillion dollar military gets sent over to other countries and kills tens/hundreds of thousands of people in wars they helped foment, using tax dollars we paid, or based on loans that have to be repaid with our tax dollars.

So we don't have the luxury of ignoring them no matter how ridiculous they are.

Posted by jimBOB | June 16, 2008 1:46 PM

Aside from the fact that he voted for George Bush, Matthews is quite the liberal. Russert just loved him some Karl Rove. The fact that in some former life they worked for Democrats in the era of bi-partisan blurring doesn't say much about their current views and work.

Stephanopoulos did such a fine job moderating the worst Presidential debate in US history too.

Remember, the Democratic party has been the bigger tent since at least FDR, just because someone is, was or worked for a Democrat hardly makes them liberal.

Even if they were, none of them espouses a liberal viewpoint, or challenges conservative orthodoxy in questioning or investigation with any regularity. Sure, they'll "gotcha" a Republican or a conservative now and then, but that's just part of the game to them. It also doesn't actually forward liberal causes to do this, just plays into the myth that all politicians are crooked, politics is always cynical etc.

Posted by Dan D | June 16, 2008 1:49 PM

Gregory, I never wrote Katie Couric was a liberal, obvious or otherwise.

So when you asserted she was obviously a Democrat, you meant to allow the inference that she was a conservative? Pull the other one, Will.

No, really, Will, do. The Will Allen Show is amusing.

Even granting Avedon's point that "Democrat" and "liberal" are not synonymous, you're still asserting an "obvious" to Couric, in the context of her broadcast career, without presenting a shred of evidence. So go on, Will, amuse us. just how is Couric obviously a Democrat? Alas, pointing out that she's a twit won't do -- we have your counterexample, after all.

Posted by Gregory | June 16, 2008 1:51 PM

Who actually counts as left-wing here? By the test of some people here I'm not sure Eugene Debs would fit the bill were he alive today.

Katie Couric is to the left of Eugene Debs? Who knew?

Posted by jimBOB | June 16, 2008 1:51 PM

Others have already said it well, but let's say it again.

When Matt says "no liberals allowed on the teevee" what he means is "no liberal viewpoints allowed on the teevee."

Look, if Sean Hannity were secretly a liberal, it wouldn't make his show any less conservative.

I know it comes as a shock to the conservatives posting here, but what someone internally believes is less important than what he does.

Matthews, Couric, Brokaw, etc. may or may not, personally, be liberal or Democratic or socialist or who-the-hell-cares. But they do not act as liberal partisans on their shows. O'Reilly and Scarborough and Hannity are conservative partisans on their shows.

That's the difference.

To be fair, the conservative upthread had a point regarding Maher: Maher may be a libertarian personally, but his show is indeed liberal.

There is a lot of shows and hosts that honestly strive for "balance", often at the cost of accuracy and integrity. There are two shows/hosts -- Olberman and Maher -- that forthrightly have a reasonably liberal bias. There are tons of shows/hosts that have a conservative bias.

(and actually Olberman is not so much liberal as anti-Bush, and Maher is not so much liberal as anti-Republican. But I quibble.)

Posted by apetterson | June 16, 2008 2:01 PM

"Democrat" and "liberal" are not synonyms.

I'm glad to hear that for once on this blog. It's hard to believe most people here actually agree that a Democrat can be centrist or consertative on some issues without being labeled a Republican or a purveyor of 'rightwing talking points.'

Posted by Tim K | June 16, 2008 2:04 PM

DR - whatever Stephanopoulos's views may be at this point, he was one of the Clinton White House's house liberals (along with Harold Ickes, I believe).

Beyond that, I'll just note, with Warren Terra, that I think we can conclusively solve the "is Tim K a concern troll" question in this comments thread. Basically, we have a guy who spent months claiming to be a Clinton supporting Democrat and constantly raising "concerns" about Obama's viability as a general election candidate.

And now here he is (and I think I've seen this in other threads as well, although I can't point to them), parroting typical right wing talking points. What a hack.

Posted by John | June 16, 2008 2:08 PM

Good grief, what is it that has prevented people from reading that I specificaly wrote that the term "liberal" was not useful in describing people on television? No, I didn't substitute "liberal" for "Democrat". Look, if you want to ignore Couric's public statements, the fact that her sister headed the Democratic Party in Virginia, etc., as strongly indicative that Couric favored the Democratic Party (Olbrmann claims to not vote, btw, as if that prevents one form favoring a particular party), fine.

Johnnybutter, first, I'm not a "conservative" unless you run across a lot of anti War on Drugs, pro gay marrigae, anti abortion regulation, etc., people who describe themselves as "conservative". Whatever one thinks of George W. Bush, it's bad for a network news anchor to use phony or extremely badly sourced "evidence" to sell a story, no matter what one thinks of the truth of the matter. By the way, I'm all for the exclusionary rule in criminal trials. Do you always have such preconceptions of people you engage with?

Posted by Will Allen | June 16, 2008 2:11 PM

Liberalism/Moderation----GOOD for America

Conservatism----BAD for America

These days, it has become as simple as that.

Posted by nikto | June 16, 2008 2:19 PM

No Gregory, when I specificaly write that the terms "liberal" are "conservative" are not useful in describing people on t.v.. that specifically means I am NOT allowing an inference that Couric is a conservative. Sheesh, can you try to read a thread, just once?

Posted by Will Allen | June 16, 2008 2:22 PM

Whatever one thinks of George W. Bush, it's bad for a network news anchor to use phony or extremely badly sourced "evidence" to sell a story, no matter what one thinks of the truth of the matter.

I agree with you. But your original point was that Rather was so in the tank for the Dems that he...used a bad source to attempt to prove something which everyone already knew to be true, thereby actually innoculating Bush. So, yes, I agree with you very much that it was a bad idea. I would say however, it's debatable whether Rather was 'in the tank' for a partisan POV. And you were using legal language, which suggested that this issue was being ajudicated in a court, which it wasn't.

I'm not a "conservative"...Do you always have such preconceptions of people you engage with?

Oh, but I never said you were.

see? Two can play!

Posted by jonnybutter | June 16, 2008 2:29 PM

Look, if you want to ignore Couric's public statements, the fact that her sister headed the Democratic Party in Virginia, etc.

Yet you conveniently ignore the fact that Matthews' brother (Jim Matthews) ran for Lt. Governor of Pennsylvania for the Republicans, and is the Republican Chairman of the Board of Commissioners for Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. So if having a Democratic sister makes Couric a Democrat, then having a Republican brother should make Matthews a Republican, no?

Posted by DR | June 16, 2008 2:29 PM

Just simplify it: its a "no consistent liberals" rule.

They can be liberals, but they cannot advocate a specific liberal viewpoint on a consistent basis. They must criticize Democrats, a lot, and not from a lefty perspective (ie, Democrats are too willing to give the Republicans what they want).

So when Newsweek gave columns to both Kos and Karl Rove, I was excited. Finally, an actual proud Democrat within the pages of a major newsmagazine. And its to the point where I'd be happy to exchange, on a 1-for-basis, liberals and conservatives.

For example, I'd like Rachel Maddow to have a MSNBC show. And, if MSNBC feels they have to give a show to a conservative, I'd be fine with them giving the show to whoever conservatives want. Michelle Malkin? Randall Terry? Ann Coulter? Liberally, no one is too crazy. Whoever the conservatives want to have a show they can have.

Posted by JoshA | June 16, 2008 2:37 PM

I'm not a "conservative" unless you run across a lot of anti War on Drugs, pro gay marrigae, anti abortion regulation

Actually, you could easily be a conservative and hold these positions. None of these would paint you as liberal. Most libertarians I know consider themselves quite conservative, yet hold many if not all of these same positions. All of these positions are consistent with a small government, conservative position.

Liberals (in the U.S.) would normally hold these positions, but they are really secondary to what defines American liberalism. American liberalism holds primarily to the idea of equality of opportunity. Social justice is a necessary precondition to this, so liberalism must defend it.

Posted by DR | June 16, 2008 2:37 PM

No, DR, I said her public statements, in conjunction with ther sister's position, is strongly suggestive that she favors the Democratic Party.

No, johnnnybutter, my point was that Rather was so eager to have this story hurt Bush that he was willing to become extremely unprofessional in an effort to air the story.

Posted by Will Allen | June 16, 2008 2:39 PM

To add on, DR, if Couric had a mirror image record to Chris Mathews', and had worked for Repubican Congressmen in the manner that Matthews worked for Demiocrats, that would of course be strongly indicative that Matthews' family members had differring party ties than Matthews. That isn't the case.

As to who is "liberal" or "conservative", I can't think of a more uninteresting query. The words have become meaningless. Go inquire as to how people who favor speech codes in colleges describe themselves.

Posted by Will Allen | June 16, 2008 2:46 PM

Juandostres:

Because someone uses a word that you don't know does not mean they are "talking down to you." Where do people get this notion? The guy who passes you because he can run faster - is he making fun of you? I've never once heard KO use a word I thought was out of the ordinary - he talks the way you would expect a reasonably intelligent person who does a fair amount of reading to speak. Your insecurities do not figure into it.

Posted by Theron | June 16, 2008 2:52 PM

Matthews has a pretty clear, public track record of favoring Republican politicians. All you need to do is read his shows' transcripts. Chris Matthews worked for Tip O'Neill TWENTY YEARS AGO. Did you hold exactly the same opinions twenty years ago? neither did I!

Matthews himself makes it quite clear that he is NOT a Democrat. He identifies himself sometimes as an independant, but most often he implies that he is a Republican. He worked on his brother's campaign AND spoke at a number of Republican events last year.

So if you still want to insist against all evidence that Matthews is still a Democrat, I suggest you ask him why he spent so much time supporting Republicans in the last 2 years.

Chris Matthews views politics like a football game. He might root for one team or another, but for him, the real interest is in the game itself. He has rarely offered clear opinions in areas of policy, EXCEPT to make clear his opposition to Gay marriage and abortion (both consistent with his open Catholicism). He is quite clear only in his positions relating to the game itself.

And, as most sports fans are, he tends to root for the winning team. Right now, that's the Dems, but for the last 10 or so years, it was the Repugs.

Posted by DR | June 16, 2008 3:00 PM

Will Allen wrote: Look, if you want to ignore Couric's public statements

Which public statements, Will? Asserting that she made "public statements" that support your assertion that she's "obviously a Democrat" gets you nowhere.

No one's ignoring Couric's public statements, because no one has entered them into evidence, Will. I invite you to put up or shut up, knowing you'll do neither -- that is, after all, your "same old tired schtick."

the fact that her sister headed the Democratic Party in Virginia

So what? If one family member has a public role in a political party, it's "obvious" their immediate family members are also members of that party? Riiiiight.

etc.

What "etc"? You're implying that there are further reasons to believe Couric is "obviously a Democrat," while having provided only one typically unsupported assertion and one inference by association. Pretty weak beer, Will. As usual.

as strongly indicative that Couric favored the Democratic Party

Wait, I thought you said "Couric is obviously a Democrat"? Moving the goalposts again, I see, Will.

Thanks for demonstrating once again the, er, value of your assertions, Will.

And, I might add, the irony of your descirbing anyone else as "a guy who is scared stiff by the notion that he isn't half as smart as he tries to appear, because the notion is well-founded."

Posted by Gregory | June 16, 2008 3:03 PM

DR, I never insisted that Matthews was a Democrat. I said his track record of working for Democrats made him a bad analogy to Couric and her sister. I tend to think that Matthews is mostly interested in the contest, but that he still has some emotional ties to a certain kind of Democratic politician.

Posted by Will Allen | June 16, 2008 3:06 PM

Will Allen wrote: No, DR, I said her public statements, in conjunction with ther sister's position, is strongly suggestive that she favors the Democratic Party.

Ah, but again, Will, you originally said that "Couric is obviously a Democrat" (emphasis added). So are you now admitting you were wrong to use such an emphatic term?

And again, what "public statements" are you referring to?

Posted by Gregory | June 16, 2008 3:08 PM

Dan Rather got it right. Mrs. Knox confirmed. Lt. Bush went AWOL. I served in the U.S.A.F. at the time this was happening. If I'd done what Lt. Bush did, I'd have been written up and probably dishonorably discharged. The Bush family used their "connections" to get their drunken first son a free pass, just as they used their "connections" to get little Georgie into the Texas Air National Guard in the first place, to avoid Vietnam. Now, their drunken son, as president, has sullied the Bush family name beyond repair. I'd laugh except for the fact that their drunken son has done so much damage to our democracy, to our military, to our Constitution.

Posted by The Oracle | June 16, 2008 3:11 PM

my point was that Rather was so eager to have this story hurt Bush that he was willing to become extremely unprofessional in an effort to air the story.

Your point was that he was 'in the tank' for Democrats. This thread is about partisan political bias in the media, no?

As to who is "liberal" or "conservative", I can't think of a more uninteresting query.

I won't argue with that. But the issue has been forced by the party in power, so that's the way it goes. Live by the moronic ideology, die by it.

Posted by jonnybutter | June 16, 2008 3:15 PM

Will:

My point was that the proof is really in the pudding, not in a person's siblings. Matthews has openly supported Republican candidates. As far as I'm aware, Couric has never done anything of the sort, not even her sister. So for you to say that she is "obviously" a Democrat, but refuse to apply the same reasoning to Matthews is disingenuous.

Unless you have a transcript where Couric says "I'm a Democrat", your position is untenable.

Posted by DR | June 16, 2008 3:15 PM

Gregory, I apologize for using "obviously" when I should have wrote "strongly suggestive". Now, can you explain how it is you read "Democrat" and come to think it means "liberal", especially when the writer has also stated that he specifically does not use the term "Democrat" in a synonymous fashion with the word "liberal"? Can you please diagram the sentences in this post, to demonstrate that you are capable of dialogue?

Posted by Will Allen | June 16, 2008 3:17 PM

My point was that the proof is really in the pudding, not in a person's siblings.

DR, the Will Allen Show includes many logical fallacies (collect 'em all!); guilt by association is simply one of the more prominent components of his "same old tired schtick."

Posted by Gregory | June 16, 2008 3:19 PM

Putting Robt Reich on is a trick, because he quickly becomes so annoying that people either stop listening or turn off the show entirely. barney Frank is the guy I'd love to see as a regular.

Posted by Gene | June 16, 2008 3:19 PM

Will:

I'll repeat your original comment, so we're all clear:

The terms "liberal" and "conservative" are too vague to be useful, but it is disingenuous to ignore the number of talking heads who slant or slanted towards the Democratic party

I'm sorry, but I still read this as code whereby you're replacing liberal with Democratic, trying to pass SPAM off as real ham... I'm simply not biting. You can complain all you want, but it's not flying (as you've probably noticed). It's not that we haven't read your posts, it's that we're not buying what you're selling.

It's just the old "Liberal Media Bias" canard, in new garb.

And you're just a conservative troll...

Posted by DR | June 16, 2008 3:22 PM

DR, do you care to make a wager on the rate of party similarity between state chairman of major political parties, and their siblings? It would entail some work to flesh it out, but if you make the wager large enough, I'd be willing to do the work.

Posted by Will Allen | June 16, 2008 3:23 PM

And Will:

You're still ignoring that vastly larger number of talking heads who slant towards the Republican Party...

Posted by DR | June 16, 2008 3:24 PM

I apologize for using "obviously" when I should have wrote "strongly suggestive".

Today, one time only on the Will Allen Show -- as close as he'll ever come to an admission of error! I hope it didn't hurt too much.

Now, Will, how about you proving that you're "capable of dialogue" -- as opposed to mere argument by assertion -- by citing the "public statements" that you assert make it "strongly suggestive" Couric "favors the Democratic Party"? Because so far, you haven't even supported your fallback position.

For someone who goes on about reading comprehension, it's mystifying that you seem to have missed my asking several times already. Why, you'd alost think that neither putting up nor shutting up was part of your "same old tired schtick"!

Posted by Gregory | June 16, 2008 3:27 PM

DR, I don't care what you buy. If you wish to think that a person who states that term "A" is too vague to be useful is somehow logically implying that term "A" is synonymous with term "B", well, you just go right ahead. By the way, Olbrmann has never said "I'm a Democrat", and indeed, he claims he doesn't vote. If you wish to also claim that this means that Olbermann's show does not favor the Democratic Party, well, you go right ahead with that as well.

Yes, Johnnybutter, when I note that Rather spoke at a Democratic fundraiser, and his employment of sources in the Texas Air National Guard story, his interaction with the first President Bush in a rather famous interview, his being the only anchor who still thought Gore had a chance to prevail after the Bush v. Gore decision was announced, I conclude he was in the tank for Democrats.

Posted by Will Allen | June 16, 2008 3:34 PM

DR, do you care to make a wager on the rate of party similarity between state chairman of major political parties, and their siblings? It would entail some work to flesh it out, but if you make the wager large enough, I'd be willing to do the work.

Not so fast, Will. You're the one asserting that Couric's sister's party affiliation makes it obvious -- excuse me, "strongly indicitave" -- that she "favors the Democratic Party." it's up to you to support your assertions; so far, despite repeated requests, you haven't. Not that anyone is surprised.

Thanks, as always, though, for your tacit admission that you aren't initially willing to do the work to support your own assertions. Believe me, though, that much was obvious.

Posted by Gregory | June 16, 2008 3:37 PM

Will:

I'm sure there are a lot of families where everyone votes either Republican or Democratic. Actually, I'd be willing to bet that is the case the vast majority of the time.

You have made the following statement:

- Couric is a Dem because her sister is a Dem official. And because of some statements she made that might possibly imply that she has voted for a Democrat at least once in her life.

But the point you were trying to make was that:

- Couric is biased, and that all her reporting slants Democratic.

That is something you simply cannot demonstrate, simply because Couric rarely if ever does any kind of real political reporting. She's far more likely to ask a politician what his favorite color is than inquire about details of his position on health care. Unless the color yellow is slanted Democratic, I really don't care...

My point is that Matthews has shown clear Republican bias, to the point of making statements such as:

- McCain "deserves to be president" (July 10, 2007)
- Said of Giuliani that "Giuliani "has street cred" on the issue of "protect[ing] this country against the bad guys," (Feb 5, 2008)
- Asked Giuliani the ultimate softball question: "Are you being screwed by the press?" (Jan 3, 2008)

I could find massive number of quotes like these; Matthews was positively ebullient about Giuliani (at the beginning of this year) and McCain (last year). He's obviously changed his tune recently (he now has near orgasms thinking about Obama).

Couric is far more careful to stay neutral; to the point that she is insipid. So to use Couric as an instance of Democratic-bias in the media is ridiculous; using Matthews, as the Right loves to do is mindblowingly idiotic.

The simple fact, Will my friend, is that there is no Democratic or liberal bias in the media today. There is, on the other hand, a clear corporatist bias.

Posted by DR | June 16, 2008 3:38 PM

wow, it took THREE whole posts until we had the wingnut troll inform us that all TV journalists are liberals. I know you guys are bummed about McCain, but come on, pick up your spirits or people will start forgetting these things. C'mon, can't I at least get one of you to tell me Al Gore invented the internet just for old times sake?

Posted by Bleu demon | June 16, 2008 3:39 PM

wow, it took THREE whole posts until we had the wingnut troll inform us that all TV journalists are liberals. I know you guys are bummed about McCain, but come on, pick up your spirits or people will start forgetting these things. C'mon, can't I at least get one of you to tell me Al Gore invented the internet just for old times sake?

Posted by Bleu demon | June 16, 2008 3:41 PM

Gregory, when you demonstrate that you are literate enough to grasp that the word "liberal" is not synonymous with "Democrat", especially after the writer has specifically stated that the word "libral" is too vague to be useful, then I'll be happy to go to the work of linking to statements made by Couric which strongly suggest that she favors the Democratic Party. It is impossible to have a conversation with you, because you simply ignore words that are written, and supply new ones in their place, no matter if the person you are conversing with has specifically stated that this is not his intent.

Posted by Will Allen | June 16, 2008 3:42 PM

One of my sisters is a country club Republican, and the other is a Ron Paulish libertarian.

Says nothing about me.

(I'm a liberal, BTW.)

Posted by gemini | June 16, 2008 3:48 PM

Olbrmann has never said "I'm a Democrat", and indeed, he claims he doesn't vote. If you wish to also claim that this means that Olbermann's show does not favor the Democratic Party, well, you go right ahead with that as well.

Not so fast, Will. If Olbermann's critiques of the Bush Administration's mendacity, incompetence, corruption and tyrrany favor the Democratic party, it's easily chalked up to the Bush Administration's mendacity, incompetence, corruption and tyrrany, not to mention the two-party nature of American politics. One need not be either a Democrat nor a liberal to find the Bush Administration's mendacity, incompetence, corruption and tyrrany disgusting.

It does make one wonder, though, when someone spends so much of their time complaining instead about those they perceive having some beef with the Administration. At this point, you'd really have to wonder about someone who doesn't.

Posted by Gregory | June 16, 2008 3:49 PM

DR, I never once disputed the notion that there are many talking heads slant towards the Republican Party. If failure to mention it means I've ignored, I uess I plead guilty. There are a lot of other things I didn't mention as well.

My point was that the audiences which dwarf the cable shows' audiences, the broadcast news shows, have tended to have anchors which favored Democrats. Rather and Jennings were the most obvious and since they left, the phenomena is not as pronounced.

Posted by Will Allen | June 16, 2008 3:51 PM

It is impossible to have a conversation with you

Fine, Will...how about me? If you won't answer Gregory's very clear and explicit question, maybe you'll answer mine. What "public statements" has Katie Couric made that are "strongly suggestive" of her favoring the Democratic Party?

Posted by Uncle Kvetch | June 16, 2008 3:54 PM

Gregory, if you think Olbrmann's treatment of Republicans differs from his treatment of Democrats only in regards to the current Administration, you are in error.

Look, go aehad and insist that Olbermann and Couric are netural in reards to the two major parties. I really don't care.

Posted by Will Allen | June 16, 2008 3:56 PM

It is impossible to have a conversation with you

Fine, Will...how about me? If you won't answer Gregory's very clear and explicit question, maybe you'll answer mine. What "public statements" has Katie Couric made that are "strongly suggestive" of her favoring the Democratic Party?

Posted by Uncle Kvetch | June 16, 2008 3:57 PM

Gregory, if you think Olbermann's treatment of Republicans differs from his treatment of Democrats only in regards to the current Administration, you are in error.

Look, go ahead and insist that Olbermann and Couric are netural in regards to the two major parties. I really don't care.

Posted by Will Allen | June 16, 2008 4:01 PM

Gregory, when you demonstrate that you are literate enough to grasp that the word "liberal" is not synonymous with "Democrat", especially after the writer has specifically stated that the word "libral" is too vague to be useful, then I'll be happy to go to the work of linking to statements made by Couric which strongly suggest that she favors the Democratic Party.

Not so fast, Will. Even after backing down form your "obvious" claim, you asserted to DR that Couric "favors the Democratic Party." You offered no evidence, save for a vague reference to her public statements and the notation of her sister's position in party politics. Weak beer all around.

And speaking fo weak beer, DR rightly reminds us that all your bullshit is trying to claim that there's some kind of bias to the media -- call it liberal, Democratic, anti-Bush, anti-Repuclican, anti-conservative or what you will, and you've utterly failed in your efforts to make the case. Though I erred in attributing the work "liberal" as opposed to "Democratic" to your characterization of Couric, the fact remains that you are attempting to assert bias on her part -- which you initally asserted was "obvious" and maintain is "strongly suggest[ed]" -- and have completely failed to do so. We're all waiting -- dazzle us, Will.

I submit that you're revealing bias, all right, Will, but not the kind you think.

Thanks for proving as usual that you neither put up or shut up, Will. It's richly ironic that someone whose "same old tired schtick" consists of nothing but unsupported assertions claims that it's impossible to have a conversation with anything else. But then, I doubt anyone who's familiar with your schtick deludes themselves into thinking it's possible to have a conversation with you.

Posted by Gregory | June 16, 2008 4:08 PM

Look, go ahead and insist that Olbermann and Couric are netural in regards to the two major parties. I really don't care.

Yoo-hoo, Will, over here...Gregory can take care of himself, but I haven't "insisted" a blessed thing with regards to Katie Couric.

You, on the other hand, have.

And now you're backpedaling furiously, because you have nothing to back up your claims beyond the laughably irrelevant party affiliation of Couric's sister(!) and vague allusions to Couric's "public statements," none of which you're willing to share with us.

Very weak.

Posted by Uncle Kvetch | June 16, 2008 4:13 PM

Gregory, when you demonstrate that you are literate enough to grasp that the word "liberal" is not synonymous with "Democrat", especially after the writer has specifically stated that the word "libral" is too vague to be useful, then I'll be happy to go to the work of linking to statements made by Couric which strongly suggest that she favors the Democratic Party.

Not so fast, Will. Even after backing down form your "obvious" claim, you asserted to DR that Couric "favors the Democratic Party." You offered no evidence, save for a vague reference to her public statements and the notation of her sister's position in party politics. Weak beer all around.

And speaking fo weak beer, DR rightly reminds us that all your bullshit is trying to claim that there's some kind of bias to the media -- call it liberal, Democratic, anti-Bush, anti-Repuclican, anti-conservative or what you will, and you've utterly failed in your efforts to make the case. Though I erred in attributing the work "liberal" as opposed to "Democratic" to your characterization of Couric, the fact remains that you are attempting to assert bias on her part -- which you initally asserted was "obvious" and maintain is "strongly suggest[ed]" -- and have completely failed to do so. We're all waiting -- dazzle us, Will.

I submit that you're revealing bias, all right, Will, but not the kind you think.

Thanks for proving as usual that you neither put up or shut up, Will. It's richly ironic that someone whose "same old tired schtick" consists of nothing but unsupported assertions claims that it's impossible to have a conversation with anything else. But then, I doubt anyone who's familiar with your schtick deludes themselves into thinking it's possible to have a conversation with you.

Posted by Gregory | June 16, 2008 4:14 PM

No, Gregory, you didn't "err". You misrepresented my statement. You have done this consistently, when I have had the misfortune of having you address me. I try to to be charitable, and attribute this to illiteracy, rather than dishonesty.

Uncle Kvetch, this'll seem like a dodge, but I have to go now. I'll try to get back here tonight.

Posted by Will Allen | June 16, 2008 4:15 PM

Normally I'd be inclined to cut you some slack, Will, but fully 3-1/2 hours have elapsed since "Katie Couric is obviously a Democrat"--more than enough time for you to come up with something, anything, that wasn't utterly ridiculous.

Bye now.

Posted by Uncle Kvetch | June 16, 2008 4:26 PM

Will Allen, who complained upthread that "It is impossible to have a conversation with you, because you simply ignore words that are written, and supply new ones in their place, no matter if the person you are conversing with has specifically stated that this is not his intent," wrote in response to my request that he provide evidence of Couric's Democratic leanings, wrote: go ahead and insist that Olbermann and Couric are netural in regards to the two major parties

There you have it, folks.

Hey, Mister Will Reading Comprehension Allen, I am not insisting any such thing. Once again, you're the one making assertions, not offering jack squat to back them up, and then twisting insistence that you demonstrate a little intellectual honesty into assertions of the opposing point. It won't do, Will.

Someone who does this has no standing to claim that someone's admitted error was a misrepresentation. You're doing the misrepresenting, Will, in a pathetically obvious ploy to distract from the fact that you were asked to back up your assertions and have shown nothing save a half-assed reference to Couric's sister, for pity's sake. And since you're "a perfect example of a guy who is scared stiff by the notion that he isn't half as smart as he tries to appear, because the notion is well-founded," I'll spare your tender little ego and attribute it straight-up to dishonesty.

You'll pardon me if in light of all that your assertion that I am in error regarding Olbermann doesn't impress me all that much.

this'll seem like a dodge, but I have to go now

You don't say.

Posted by Gregory | June 16, 2008 4:29 PM

Of course the MSM and the non-Fox cable shows are dominated by liberals. This doesn't bear discussion.

What's more interesting is Matt's idea that O'Reilly and Olbermann are somehow competitors. O'Reilly is not a news anchor or reporter. He is a pundit, who is paid to have a strong point of view. The Fox anchor is Brit Hume. Olbermann is supposedly a news anchor. The right comparison, then, would be between Hume and Olbermann. Which one do you think is more professional? More honest? More willing to present different points of view?

Posted by DBL | June 16, 2008 4:44 PM

Well, I had two minutes. Here's a quote from a Couric broadcast.....

"Good morning. The Gipper was an airhead! That’s one of the conclusions of a new biography of Ronald Reagan that’s drawing a tremendous amount of interest and fire today", Monday, September the 27th, 1999.

...this, of course, was a misrepresentation of Edmund Morris' characterization of Reagan. More a time allows.

Posted by Will Allen | June 16, 2008 4:45 PM

This thread was sadly predictable (well, OK, except for the last 40 posts of Will Allen jousting).

Shorter thread:
Matthew: You're not allowed to have liberals on TV.
Commenter: These people are on TV and they're all liberals.
Other Commenter: No they're not.
Commenter: Yes they are.
Other Commenter: No they're not.
Commenter: Yes they are.
Other Commenter: Well, OK, they are, but they come across as neutral when they are on the air...

In other (surely non-related) news, Linda Douglass, formerly of ABC News and elsewhere, joined the Obama campaign the other day. She said "It was no secret to the reporters around me that I have Democratic-leaning views." She covered the McCain 2000 campaign when with ABC. Undoubtedly, she was completely fair and there was no hint of her Democrat leanings when she was on the air covering McCain.

Again, nothing to see here. Please move along.

Posted by Al | June 16, 2008 4:53 PM

...this, of course, was a misrepresentation of Edmund Morris' characterization of Reagan. More a time allows.

Even granting for the sake of argument that Will's characterization of a "misrepresentation" is accurate (an obviously risky proposition, especially as Will declined to provide a link so his facts could be verified), how does a "misrepresentation" -- going back to 1999, yet! -- of a biography of Reagan, who we now know suffered from Alzheimer's, which condition was covered up at the time by those close to him, "suggest," let alone "strongly" that Couric "favors the Democratic Party"?

Stick with sister, Will, you were doing better with her.

Posted by Gregory | June 16, 2008 5:01 PM

Linda Douglass, formerly of ABC News and elsewhere, joined the Obama campaign the other day. She said "It was no secret to the reporters around me that I have Democratic-leaning views." She covered the McCain 2000 campaign when with ABC. Undoubtedly, she was completely fair and there was no hint of her Democrat leanings when she was on the air covering McCain.

Doubtless unintentionally, "Al" reminds us of the difference between knowing a journalist's political opinions and having evidence of bias in their reporting. "Al," if you have evidence that Douglass was biased or unfair in her reporting, do share it with us; otherwise, your factoid is rightfully greeted with a shrug and a "so what?" The conservative myth of the "liberal media" is sinking almost as fast as the reputation of modern movement conservatism. Minions like "Al" are welcome to cling to their delusions; it's one more reason to dismiss their dishonesty.

Interestingly, though, the thread's conservative / loony libertarian posters seem to presume that journalists are inherently biased toward their political side, even if they can't quite present any convincing evidence (frankly, I think the Couric "mischaracterization" Will Allen provided demonstrates more that she is an airhead than anything else). Could this phenomenon be a subtle reflection of longtime exposure to the GOP propaganda mill that is Faux News?

Posted by Gregory | June 16, 2008 5:20 PM

Will:

I note that Rather spoke at a Democratic fundraiser...[and] his interaction with the first President Bush in a rather famous interview, his being the only anchor who still thought Gore had a chance to prevail after the Bush v. Gore decision was announced, I conclude he was in the tank for Democrats.

There used to be a Liberal Establishment, and its attendant media. Rather and Jennings were last remnants of the latter. When Dan Rather was brutally hard on the LBJ administration (a Democratic one), no one seriously thought he was 'in the tank' for the GOP. I have no brief for Dan Rather himself, and I'm under no illusion that the Fourth Estate, as it used to be called, had no liberal bias in the 50s and 60s. But it did see its job differently from how the MSM does now: one as in opposition to power - certainly not as consistently as anyone - left or right - wanted, but real enough.

What you have now is a Party Line on the right, with talking points issued by Karl and the boyz repeated verbatim - or almost verbatim - by a network of 'journalists', bloggers, 'experts', etc. DC journalists always got push-back and talking points from government, but they didn't necessarily see their job as simply passing them on.

Was Ted Koppel in the tank for the GOP for running a show every night about the Iranian hostages ('Day 232: AMERICA HELD HOSTAGE')? Was Walter Cronkite in the tank for the GOP when he did negative stories about Vietnam before Nixon? We are comparing apples to oranges here. For better and for worse, the press is very different now, and not just in terms of the cume numbers the network nightly news shows get vs other sources.

Rather himself may have gone off the deep end a bit. Maybe he, like Kevin Phillips does, hated the Bushes (not hard to understand). But until near the end he was no more 'in the tank' than anybody else. Maybe he was so appalled by the 2k election that he became more partisan - I know I was and did. For modern Republicans, everything - EVERYTHING - is partisan, so they project that worldview onto anyone who strays from their Line, even minutely: if you disagree, your opinion is worthless because it's just 'partisan'. It's moronic and childish, and self defeating in the end (thank god).

Posted by jonnybutter | June 16, 2008 5:27 PM

Why are two different trolls suggesting Phil Donohue was fired for rape/sexual harassment? Where does this bs come from?

Karl, is that you?

Posted by Whispers | June 16, 2008 5:28 PM

(sorry, hit send to fast)

So, the point is, that if you are going to have an explicitly partisan press, as opposed to a merely lightly-biased one, you have to have balance between the two sides of the fence, so you at least hear both sides. I think that's MY's point, and of course he's right. At the very least, you have to have some journalists who aren't actual MOUTHPIECES for the government. Not being a propaganda arm of the GOP does not make you 'in the tank' for the Democrats.

Posted by jonnybutter | June 16, 2008 5:36 PM

This thread was sadly predictable (well, OK, except for the last 40 posts of Will Allen jousting).

What, that sleeper cell terrorist and troll Al would crap on it at the beginning? Oh yeah.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | June 16, 2008 6:38 PM

And Will:

You're still ignoring that vastly larger number of talking heads who slant towards the Republican Party...

Posted by DR | June 16, 2008 7:22 PM

Yeah, that liberal Couric once admitted that she would tell the truth on the situation in Iraq if the military would only let her. I'll admit that was a breach of rightwing protocol. Never let the rubes in on the scam.

The dead Timmeh a liberal? Do you also believe in Creationism?

Enjoy.

Posted by Tim Fuller | June 16, 2008 7:25 PM

Yeah, that liberal Couric once admitted that she would tell the truth on the situation in Iraq if the military would only let her. I'll admit that was a breach of rightwing protocol. Never let the rubes in on the scam.

The dead Timmeh a liberal? Do you also believe in Creationism?

Enjoy.

Posted by Tim Fuller | June 16, 2008 7:28 PM

Yeah, that liberal Couric once admitted that she would tell the truth on the situation in Iraq if the military would only let her. I'll admit that was a breach of rightwing protocol. Never let the rubes in on the scam.

The dead Timmeh a liberal? Do you also believe in Creationism?

Enjoy.

Posted by Tim Fuller | June 16, 2008 7:31 PM

Lou Dobbs, in a conversation with Jeff Toobin, just referred to the Supreme Court as liberal because of an immigration decision he didn't agree with them. The exact quote, which he repeated several times, was "liberal little darlings on the court". Lou Dobbs is insane with rage over someone not getting kicked out of the country because he got married during the 60 day period he had to get out of the country after he agreed to leave voluntarily. And I am frightened that Dobbs cares this much about the issue. He is a very scary man.

Posted by Shalimar | June 16, 2008 7:45 PM

johnny, you apparently can't grasp the distinction between having a story from a particular point of view, and running a story without anything close to decent sourcing, or in the case of Bush v. Gore, becoming delusional. Rather was a devoted Democrat, and it showed on a good many of his broadcasts.

DR, and you are ignoring the fact that the Democrats who have anchored or are anchoring the nightly news have audiences which dwarf that of the Republican slanting talking heads on cable.

Gregory, apparently 1999 doesn't count for you, in terms of establishing that Couric is a Democrat, and has demonstrated it in her on-air broadcasts. Once again, please explain how your brain works.

Here a blogpost from Couric, talking about the 2006 Congress...

"This new crop worked much harder than the last. A big accomplishment was in challenging executive power with oversight hearings on Iraq, Medicare, the Department of Justice, and global warming." She concluded: "Promises, promises. Sometimes they are kept — even in Washington."

.....doubtless establishing that Couric has work-o-meter in her office, precisely establshing how much harder Democratic Congresses work than Republican ones. She's largely a cheerleader for Democrats.

Posted by Will Allen | June 16, 2008 9:34 PM

Let's be honest here. You guys are picking on Will Allen because he's incredibly self-conscious about how fucking stupid he is. That's not very nice. Sure, he thinks of himself as "beyond tribe," but then his little prejudices line up nicely with his record of voting for George W. Bush - twice; with his record of support for the brutal, and unprovoked assault on the Iraqi people; with his fantastic (and I don't mean the common parlance meaning good) assertions regarding culpability by the non-warmongers for the Khmer Rouge.

Will Allen is mostly an anti-Democrat. If there is a choice between someone competent, but who is a Democrat, Will picks the incompetent (c.f. George W. Bush). If there is a choice between an boob whose failures resulted in the deaths of 3000+ Americans as well as the unprovoked assault on an innocent nation and someone whose actual concern for the welfare of the nation is unquestionable, Will is certain to pick the warmongering boob. Hell, in his support for downright morons, he will even psychoanalyze candidates saying how they aren't qualified because they want it too much - pretty funny from a supporter of the guy who went to the Supreme Court to challenge the right of the Florida Supreme Court to adjudicate Florida State Law.

In fact, while it is unquestionably a sin in his mind to have a single false fact in an otherwise well documented news report, the use of egregious lies are, not just acceptable, but downright necessary, when one is selling the slaughter of people who aren't Will Allen.

So, asking him for evidence that the media is shilling for the Democrats amounts to boxing with a toddler. Sure it can be entertaining for a while, but deep in your heart you know it is just mean.

Posted by Not as stupid as Will Allen | June 16, 2008 9:39 PM

I cannot believe this conversation is still going on. Are we really comparing "gotcha" quotes from inside-the-beltway journalists with:

Bill O'Reilly
Joe Scarbourough
Glenn Beck
Lou Dobbs
Sean Hannity
etc.?

Seriously? We're supposed to balance that with Jon Stewart?

Posted by Leo | June 16, 2008 9:49 PM

Will, if you were able to read English you would note that your 1999 quote from Couric hardly demonstrates that she’s a Democrat. Hyperbole in selling a segment is about as common as stupidity in your posts – it’s almost impossible to find counter-examples. Criticizing Reagan does not make one a Democrat; noticing that he wasn’t really at full capacity merely makes one aware of the obvious. If your quote did show bias (and it does not), then it becomes a single data point – not a pattern. That you had to dig all the way back to 1999 to find this non-partisan hyperbole was the point Gregory was making. But, again, that would require you had some fundamental reading comprehension

So now, in your idiotic zeal to find a new quote, you take us to a blog post – not exactly the same platform as the nightly news is it? So now you are reduced to saying she is personally may be a Democrat. Oh, but wait, her quote simply says that she thinks that it is harder to provide opposition and oversight than to be the rubber stamp that existed in the previous Congress. That’s not partisanship you twit. That’s blindingly obvious.

Well, enough boxing with a toddler for now.

Posted by Not as stupid as Will Allen | June 16, 2008 9:53 PM

Calling someone an "airhead" doesn't count as "criticism". It is simply ad hominem namecalling, and when it is done in a manner which falsely characterizes the book which is being plugged, it is reasonably interpreted as a partisan assault. Also, an obviously false document which supposedly supports a central point cannot possibly be part of an otherwise "well documented report".

By the way, you are lying again regarding anything I've written regarding "culpability" for the Khmer Rouge. The fact that George McGovern spoke in support of the Khmer Rouge does not make him "culpable", just stupid. Kinda' like you.

Also, I've voted for Democrats, so I logically cannot be an "anti-Democrat". Can you write one post without lying?

Posted by Will Allen | June 16, 2008 10:50 PM

Will "Reading Comprehension" Allen wrote: Gregory, apparently 1999 doesn't count for you, in terms of establishing that Couric is a Democrat, and has demonstrated it in her on-air broadcasts.

Will, how does the quote you cited establish that Couric is a Democrat, let alone has demonstrated it in her on-air broadcasts? As Leo pointed out, your next bit wasn't even in,/i> a broadcast.

Couric has work-o-meter in her office, precisely establshing how much harder Democratic Congresses work than Republican ones.

Gee, Will, how hard is it for a Republican Congress to rubber stamp Bush's agenda?

She's largely a cheerleader for Democrats.

Will, old buddy, you're simply delusional. Is this really the best you can do? A couple of quotes, one of which, you claim, misrepresents a Reagan biography as depicting him as an airhead, one of which describes the 2006 Congress as hardworking, makes her "a cheerleader for Democrats"?

Inigo Montoya put it best: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Posted by Gregory | June 16, 2008 10:53 PM

I've voted for Democrats, so I logically cannot be an "anti-Democrat".

You're right, Will; you obviously can't be logically anti-Democrat, but as you demonstrate time and again, it never stops you.

I hate to break it to you, Will ol' buddy, but Glenn Reynolds ran the "I've voted for Democrats, so please don't call me on the obviously partisan nature of my posts" schtick into the ground years ago. Everyone can see who you spend your time complaining about, and whose sins you ignore completely, save perhaps for a few mumbling disclaimers. That dog won't hunt, Will.

It is simply ad hominem namecalling, and when it is done in a manner which falsely characterizes the book which is being plugged, it is reasonably interpreted as a partisan assault.

No, it isn't, actually; and besides, if you've established nothing else in this thread it's that you're a piss-poor judge of what's "reasonably interpreted as a partisan assault."

Or, I might add, what "strongly suggests" someone is a Democrat. If this is the best you can do, it's clear you have nothing. Full marks for claiming your busted flush is a full house, but the rest of the house is laughing at you.

As far as I'm concerned, the Will Allen Show is over, and another flop in the ratings. Thanks, though, Will, for once again demonstrating your same old tired schtick.

Posted by Gregory | June 16, 2008 11:03 PM

Why are two different trolls suggesting Phil Donohue was fired for rape/sexual harassment? Where does this bs come from?

Either projection or just trying to fob Loofa-boy BillO's baggage onto someone else.

Posted by JHB | June 16, 2008 11:27 PM

Will is, as is his habit, lying about McGovern. Those who have already noticed this penchant can decide which of us has more credibility. The guy who claims Couric is so obviously a Democrat, but has bupkis to back it up (though he did finally have to admit that he had wildly overstated his case), or a random stranger whose comments have revealed the depths of Will's dishonesty and stupidity.

As to your, typically, dishonest assertions about Couric: If I post "Is Will Allen a lying toad?" That's still a question, not a statement, even if it implies an obvious truth. That Reagan was an Alzheimer's afflicted dunderhead is beyond question. Calling such a person an "airhead" still wouldn't demonstrate partisanship. Just admit that you see partisanship because you not only voted for the idiot child of Barbara and George, but also for Reagan the airhead and don't want all of your votes at the presidential level to be revealed to have been for the lesser qualified candidates.

And then we get to the Rather matter. All these years later and George W. Bush has still never managed to provide evidence that he fulfilled his duty. "The dog ate my homework" is all we get from Bush tribesmen like you. The fact that the document fit the known facts made it less an "obvious forgery" than a rather convenient bit of icing. It never was the central bit of evidence and only deranged Bush-bots like yourself claimed otherwise.

Does anyone know how to get toddler blood off your gloves?

Posted by Not as stupid as Will Allen | June 16, 2008 11:41 PM

George McGovern, in the well of the Senate, debating whether aid to the Lon Nol government should be ended, as it fought the Khmer Rouge...

"The growing hysteria of the administration's posture on Cambodia, seems to me to reflect a determined refusal to consider what the fall of the existing government in Phnom Penh would actually mean. . . . We should be able to see that the kind of government which would succeed Lon Nol's forces would most likely be a government . . . run by some of the best-educated, most able intellectuals in Cambodia."

Now, some people have claimed that this statement is not one of support for the Khmer Rouge, but one that posited that some entity other than the Khmer Rouge would take power in Cambodia when aid to the Lon Nol government was ended. Heck, I'm pretty harsh on McGovern, but even I don't claim he was THAT stupid. I don't know why the Meathead above hates McGovern that much. He was stupid, but also a real patriot, so he deserves some respect.

Now, meathead, I've never offered an opinion on Bush's National Guard service. You've been in the peyote again, haven't you? I merely noted that the use of obviously false documents to sell a story, whatever the truth of the story, is evidence of bad faith. Finally, meathead, no, to say that something is "obvious" is not all that far from saying that something is "strongly suggested" given that the latter in particular is somewhat subjective. You really are dense, aren't you.

Gregory, you just go ahead and dispute the assertion that Couric is a Democrat. No, I'm not going to link to a hundred or so Couric interviews for people to view.

Posted by Will Allen | June 17, 2008 1:32 AM

Why lookee here, we've got a toddler who just can't stop boxing with the adults. And look how cute his insults are "meathead." How cute is that. It's like he learned all of his politics from watching All In The Family without ever noticing that the guy calling someone a meathead was a caricature of just the kind of idiot we see in Will Allen.

Find a quote that actually references the Khmer Rouge. Then tell me how great the Lon Nol government was and why the people were so happy to have a US backed dictatorship. Idiot. It was warmongers like you that brought about the Khmer Rouge. McGovern was wrong, but the issue wasn't black and white.

As for Bush's service, you keep defending it. You pretend you aren't, but the facts are simple - Rather's report didn't hinge on the document you and your little tribe of Bushmen want to pretend was critical. It was not.

For the adults, let's compare little Willy's response to Condi "Mushroom Cloud" Rice and crew's repeated lies about Iraq. Oh, that's right, full-throated support. So much support that he voted for these thugs the second time. Here there's no "evidence of bad faith." Just a war so Will Allen can get his kicks reading about dead brown people. (if we wait long enough we'll see Will Allen bring up his favorite three letter slur he uses to refer to people whose oil he thinks he deserves)

It really should be a crime to beat a child this way.

Posted by Not as stupid as Will Allen | June 17, 2008 3:02 AM

Meathead, anybody who didn't think it was black and white as to what would follow with the fall of the Lon Nol government is too stupid for words. Like you.

Gosh you're so dumb that you can't grasp that if a story doesn't depend on falsified documents, they shouldn't be used. Congratulations. Also, no, I've never taken a position on Gush's Guard service. You really can't write a post without lying, can you?

Finally, could drop th pretense that you give a damn about Iraqis? Unless you've been living in a cave, you wee perfectly fine with paying thugs to keep a boot on their throats for several more decades at least.

Posted by Will Allen | June 17, 2008 10:43 AM

Will, "too stupid for words" perfectly describes you and your post-hoc understanding of Cambodia. Can we give up any pretense that you ever gave a damn about the Cambodians? Your support for the bombings that resulted in the coup by Lon Nol leads directly to the Khmer Rouge. Why did you support the rise of the Khmer Rouge?

Stop lying about your support for the myth of Bush's National Guard "service." Every time you lie about the importance of a single document you take a position in support of that lie (if I bother to respond to your insane blathering after this I won't bother to refute your lies on Rather, they are too obvious).

As to your love for the Iraqis, what was that charming thing you keep calling them? I'm sure you will remember soon enough. Nonetheless, it wasn't my plan to put the American boot on their throats. It wasn't my plan to murder several hundred thousand of them. Under my plan they have food, electricity, jobs, and lives. Under yours they have, well, none of that.

Hm...hellish nightmare from Will Allen or not from someone who is not nearly as stupid as Will Allen.

I wonder, given the choice, if the Iraqis would really have chosen Will Allen's Boschian landscape over what they had. Well, not really, because, I'm not as stupid as Will Allen.

Posted by Not as stupid as Will Allen | June 17, 2008 11:02 AM

Once again, note that Will Allen is happy to support the mass murder of Iraqis based on lies, but a reporter who uses a single false document in an otherwise well sourced piece is history's greatest monster.

I guess that's why they call him Will the Bloody. Wait, no that's will the boob. Sorry.

Posted by Not as stupid as Thomas | June 17, 2008 11:07 AM

Oops, I'm not as stupid as either Thomas or Will, but I did make a posting error. Still, not as big an error as supporting the unprovoked assault on the Iraqi people.

How much Iraqi blood will satisfy you Will? Oh, that's right, you don't care about the blood, you just want their oil.

Posted by Not as stupid as Will Allen | June 17, 2008 11:12 AM

Hey, meathead? You want their oil every bit as much as I do, you are just too dishonest to admit it, and too dishonest to admit that you think their fate should be to be under the boots of thugs, so as to satisfy your oil thirst, ya' ol phony, you.

Really, could you write one single post without lying? I never supported the bombing of Cambodia. I was a child at the time. Why on earth do you lie so much?

As for some of your other, nearly countless lies, I never said Rather was a monster. I said that someone who used obviosuly falsified documents was acting in bad faith, whatever the truth of the story as a whole. Good grief, you really are pathological, aren't you? I dare you. Write one post that doesn't contain a lie.

Posted by Will Allen | June 17, 2008 11:50 AM

Wow, even as a child you supported the bombing of Cambodia? That's some hard-core psychosis. You should probably get some help.

I am glad by the way, to find that you have a sense of humor. Your bit on Rather is hilarious, a casual reader would have assumed you were serious in suggesting that I was "lying" about you calling him history's greatest monster.

Seriously though, your continual attempts to paint McGovern as somehow "supporting" the Khmer Rouge is far less honest than my calling you a supporter of the bombings that led to their rise. McGovern did not know that the violence wouldn't subside once Nixon's civil war in Cambodia was finished with the people's choice of the king back in charge.

The truth is, oh lover of death, that your hatred is so great that you would twist the words of someone who opposed more American deaths lost because Nixon escalated the war on Vietnam into Cambodia into something called "support" for the monsters they became.

If your hindsight in Iraq were half as good as your hindsight in Cambodia then you would curse George W. Bush. But it isn't the blood of the Cambodians that is your focus, it is the hated non-warmongers. That's what Iraq gave you - a chance to see more death and destruction carried out by Americans. A chance to steal the oil from the Iraqis fair and square - without the middle man your airheaded Reagan helped commit mass murder.

There is a special hell for people like me who taunt the brain-dead.

Posted by Not as stupid as Will Allen | June 17, 2008 10:06 PM