If you, like me, have ever wondered where all those "Democratic strategist" and "Republican strategist" types who show up on cable networks come from, you won't want to miss Daniel Libit's Politico article on the subject. Basically, as you might suspect the whole thing is basically just made-up but all the relevant people are happy enough with the system so it persists.
« Shock of the Old | Main | Bush Gets It Right »
TV's Fake Strategists
25 Jun 2008 06:11 pm
Comments (22)
'Consultant' used to be the term for 'not a journalist, not employed by a campaign or an elected official'. Obviously the consultantes' union complained.
Ultimately, if you're a cheap cab ride away from a studio and Give Good Television, you're on the bookers' list. That's all.
Obviously the consultantes' union complained.
If the strategists' union complains, may I suggest "hack."
And if the hacks' union complains, "no talent ass clown."
And if the ass clowns' union complains, tell them where they can shove it.
pseudonymous in nc:
I am sure bribing the booker helps as well.
>where all those "Democratic strategist" and "Republican strategist" types who show up on cable networks come from,
No, but I guess they make good counter-arguments to the theory of evolution.
The networks should be forced to put batting averages on all the talking head - "strategists", "consultants", and "pundits".
Anyone below the Mendoza line, like George ".003" Will, must be banned from the airwaves.
Southpaw, I think you're underestimating the power of the Ass Clown Lobby: there's a lot of them in D.C...
Where do all the wannabe pundits come from, Matt?
Oh, right...Harvard. Maybe Yale...
I'm seeing a big banner ad for British Petroleum at the top of the Matthew Yglesia's blog.
Oh lordy, Matt.
Money from Big Oil? I thought you were a trust fund baby...
"I'm seeing a big banner ad for British Petroleum at the top of the Matthew Yglesia's blog."
Uhm, I'm seeing The Atlantic banner.
You have spyware, I suspect. Run a scan.
I want that job.
Now.
I regret having to agree with Dick Hack on this one. Nothing personal to Matt, as I am a frequent reader (and enjoyer, if that is a word) of his blog, but criticizing these consultants is a bit thin when you are 27 years old, your resume lacks any experience other than puditry and commentary, and you appear frequently on similar programs to express an expert opinion.
To put this in my own perspective, at 28, I would be laughed out of the room if I claimed to be an expert voice even in the small and fairly simple area of law that I practice in.
But I guess I didn't go to Harvard (Just reminded myself of this: "He was wearing my Harvard tie!... oh, like he went to Harvard!"- Lewis Winthorpe).
laborlibert:
I think you are missing the point. I am pretty sure MY thinks it is stupid all the way around. I doubt he thinks he's so much more exalted than those idiots(except for Kleeb's wife) that are mentioned in The Drudgico story.
Matt may not think he's more exalted - but he acts like he does.
Or at least he does when he doesn't let anybody get a word in edgewise on "The Table" videos.
Not to mention various degrees of snark - and especially not to mention his blissful ignorance of subjects on which he opines, such as his pathetic Afghanistan post today.
I send this guy tons of news on Afghanistan and Pakistan nearly every night and it's clear he simply doesn't read it. If he did, he'd never make a post like the one today that flies totally in the face of the facts on the ground in those countries.
Mr. Hack,
Perhaps he does not enjoy receiving unsolicited email from you "nearly every night." Has he expressed a desire to continue receiving such messages?
Separately, I agree with laborlibert, by the way. MY is smarter than all the "strategists" on Fox News (and I suspect his legs are less shapely) but ultimately it's not clear that he's any more qualified to opine on matters of the day.
I don't think any of these are good enough explanations.
They are mis-identifying these people as representing the party and its views!
People should be pissed! That's plain old deception, not merely convenience. If there person is just giving a liberal's personal view, they should not be identified as a party strategist.
If he doesn't want emailed useful articles that might give him a clue as to what's going on, he can say so. I don't need you to tell me that.
He can stay ignorant in that case, too.
Or I can start posting all that stuff here - to educate the rest of you. Because when it comes to the topics of Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan, there's more than a little ignorance on this blog.
It isn't just fake strategists. They now have a virtual industry devoted to casting a solid corps of "experts" created out of whole cloth.
Nancy Grace, Janine Pero - former prosecutors and legal experts on all things Post-OJ, including the certainty of guilt of the Duke Lacrosse players.
Wendy Murphy, the bitch witch. Who is a fake "professor of law" and a "sex crimes expert" who knows from afar who is innocent or guilty better than even Nancy Grace.
Various black nobodies , plus Al Sharpton & Jesse who were also nobodies until they became famous for race-baiting on TV and showing up in any city or town that had a racial incident that needed a 40oz filled with gasoline thrown at it by the phony "reverends" and the various wannabes now trying to fill Al and Jesses racial exploitation shoes....
A creepy cast of chipper young white Republicans no doubt recruited out of Young Republicans for Freedom for having the whitest teeth or the most Barbie-like figure. Who come on and say that deficits don't count, Bush is a genius, what the country really needs is more money borrowed from China to provide more tax cuts for the rich and more corporate pork. And, "things are (always) getting better and better in Iraq!".
Then there are the cable mainstays of the made up spokesman who is authoritative because she or he heads up a one-person to under a dozen person "institute" or "study group". They tend to almost always be lawyers or political activists or one of the "TV doctors, blood spatter expert, ethanol proponent, or famous global warming specialist" crank MDs or scientists.
They also tend to be young, smug...and utterly unfamiliar with the subject matter they are supposed to be experts in - as shown again and again when the questions stray...
It is especially fun when these phony experts appear alongside a real expert like Mark Fuhrman, Colonel Jacobs, Lee Hamilton, Richard Posner. The BS the phony ones dispense becomes transparantly obvious contrasted with someone who was in the field working the subject addressed or similar incidents, was very good at it, and talks from long experience..
A couple thoughts:
1. Why isn't Chris Ford banned?
2. If Richard Steven Hack finds Matt Yglesias to be such a hack, why does he read his blog obsessively, send him emails daily, and comment multiple times on every post?
3. Seriously, why isn't Chris Ford banned? I suspect it's because doing so would require Matt to vigilantly monitor the comment threads, read every wackjob post that white nobody writes (in case he reverts to pseudonyms) and then delete it. In that case, the punishment falls more on Matt than Chris, so I understand why he hasn't done it.
4. Richard Steven Hack totally wants to have, like, a million of Matt Yglesias's babies.
Re Philly
Actually, although I usually have little use for Mr. Ford, his post today is right on. particularly, the comments about Nancy Grace and Wendy Murphy.
1. Mr. Ford mentions the case of the Duke lacrosse players. Ms. Grace and Ms. Murphy pronounced them guilty as charged from the get go and continued to do so even after it became obvious to anybody with half a brain that the case was a crock of shit and prosecutor Nifong was as phony as a three dollar bill. In fact, I have no information that Ms. Murphy has conceded their innocence to this day.
2. I would also mention the attitude of these two harpies relative to the Kobe Bryant case. Here again, they pronounced Mr. Bryant guilty as charged and continued to do so in the face of considerable evidence that Kate Faber, the complainant, had a rather salty life style. Ms. Murphy claimed that the injuries found on Ms. Faber were among the worst she had ever heard of on a rape victim. When the information came out that forensic experts had found that Ms. Faber had had a sexual encounter subsequent to the alleged incident with Mr. Bryant, which would seem to be unlikely if the injuries were as serious as Ms. Murphy opined, Ms. Murphy declared that the experts were wrong!
Don't forget the body language experts, another MSNBC abomination.
Personally I would jump at the chance to conflate my views with that of the party. Yes to National Wireless and Net Neutrality! Yes on getting out of Iraq now that the Iraqis are handling things so well.
Seriously, how is that a problem?
"If Richard Steven Hack finds Matt Yglesias to be such a hack, why does he read his blog obsessively, send him emails daily, and comment multiple times on every post?"
1) I read this blog because it's the one blog I have any time for outside of Slashdot. I used to read only TPM until Marshall banned me for being "anti-Semitic". This blog covers quite a few topics and has more posts in a given day than some others like TPM, so it's a fair choice if you don't have time for fifty blogs and RSS feeds.
2) I send Matt emails to educate him - something he sadly needs. If he were to learn something and take up the correct position on the topics I'm interested in, that would be a net benefit to those who support the correct position on those topics. Well, it would be if anybody paid attention to Matt, anyway.
3) I don't comment multiple times on a post unless a) I'm responding to a comment addressed to me, or b) I think of something else useful to add (or a joke). In short, just like everybody else here except the concern trolls like yourself.
Finally, Chris Ford isn't banned because there is no mechanism to ban anybody on this blog's software. Since there's no registration required, you can't ban anybody unless they have a static IP address.
Ford would be good for a laugh if he'd just keep his posts shorter.
Comments closed July 09, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I've been wondering about this for a while, and am unsurprised to see that the networks are primarily to blame. But it makes me wonder why the national parties don't intervene: surely they don't like losing control of their message, and surely they could discourage the practice by exerting some negative influence on the alleged strategists' careers within the party.
Posted by Tom | June 25, 2008 6:58 PM