What About The Rest Of The Media?

I wrote that I would not touch upon Cramerama again but Glenn Greenwald wrote such a good post that I can not avoid it. Glenn writes:

Today, everyone -- including media stars everywhere -- is going to take Stewart's side and all join in the easy mockery of Cramer and CNBC, as though what Stewart is saying is so self-evidently true and what Cramer/CNBC did is so self-evidently wrong. But there's absolutely nothing about Cramer that is unique when it comes to our press corps. The behavior that Jon Stewart so expertly dissected last night is exactly what our press corps in general does -- and, when compelled to do so, they say so and are proud of it.

At least give credit to Cramer for facing his critics and addressing (and even acknowledging the validity of) the criticisms. By stark contrast, most of our major media stars simply ignore all criticisms of their corrupt behavior and literally suppress it (even if the criticisms appear as major, lengthy front-page exposés in The New York Times).

More . . .

Glenn is referring to the scandal at NBC regarding its use of Barry McCaffrey as an "objective military analyst" on issues in which "he ha[d] a substantial (and concealed) financial stake." That outrageous behavior was by Brian Williams, the anchor of NBC, who also outrageously defended his behavior. Cramer at least demonstrated some remorse. Williams did not. He vehemently defended his serious breaches of journalistic ethics.

So enjoy the fun with Cramer, but the real journalist culprits are still running around playing the same games.

Speaking for me only

< Does The President Get To Decide Who Will Be US Attorneys? | China "Worried" About US Debt >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Indeed. (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Radiowalla on Fri Mar 13, 2009 at 12:43:06 PM EST
    "most of our major media stars simply ignore all criticisms of their corrupt behavior and literally suppress it"

    Just ask Bob Somerby about it.

    As much as I loathe the misogynist (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by hairspray on Fri Mar 13, 2009 at 12:43:58 PM EST
    Chris Matthews, I have to give him credit for taking on Ari Fleischer recently on the Bush runup to war in Iraq.  Of course Ari lied and evaded.  He was shameless.  Chris met his match in a shout-out with him but managed to get in the last word when Ari said 'Obama was fortunate to inherit a world without Saddam Hussein' to which Chris responded...'Sure, and now we have no bulwark in the region to hold Iran and Syria at bay, instead leaving a vacuum for all of the troublemakers in the region to inhabit.  That is why we will be there for decades.'

    But Chris Matthews will NEVER (5.00 / 8) (#4)
    by Radiowalla on Fri Mar 13, 2009 at 12:56:18 PM EST
    turn his gaze inward and admit to how he and his Kool buddies in the press ganged up on Al Gore and delivered the 2000 election to a "regular guy" that you could have a beer with.  

    Sure, Matthews was against the Iraq war and he has been very critical of the Bush administration in recent months.  I will give him that.  

    However,  I will never forgive him and the rest of the Washington in-crowd of "journalists" who mocked Al Gore while ushering an incompetent frat boy into the Oval Office.  


    It's curious, isn't it? (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by oldpro on Fri Mar 13, 2009 at 01:34:35 PM EST
    As a Catholic child, one's whole training is to "turn....gaze inward and admit..."  That is the entire point of 'going to confession.'

    Is Chris Matthews still a practicing Catholic?  If he is, or pretends to be, he should be called out and questioned about self-examination, confession and penance in the public square (on the air).

    I'd give him a helluva lot more than three Hail Marys for his sins.

    On the other hand, he's not a journalist...only an entertainer...and not a very good one.  Like Cramer.


    I learned one thing (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by NYShooter on Fri Mar 13, 2009 at 03:51:38 PM EST
    during my long, long; (Lord, it was long,) career in the business world. Your Mama was always right. Those little quips and quotes she kept muttering; the ones that made us yawn and curl our noses; you know, like "waste not, want not," and all the rest. They take on a whole new meaning as you grow older......and wiser.

    Well, my sainted, guitar playing, Cossack mom used to say, "Nothing good comes from doing bad, and vice-versa.

    In Chris Matthew's case, the "bad" is his pathological rudeness. There is NEVER an excuse for being rude to another human being. And, if you're in a competitive job and want to get your point across, being rude is just plain stupid.

    In my 35 years as chief negotiator for a Fortune 500 (once a Dow) Company, I learned that by respecting my opponent, and unabashedly displaying that respect, I had an advantage that was impossible to overcome.

    In karate, striking a critical spot will bring down the biggest, toughest opponent. In successful negotiating, nothing disarms your opponent faster, and leaves them disoriented and unable to mount an aggressive counter-attack than striking them with a sincere, dignified, and respectful attitude.

    Try it; it's spooky, and it works.


    OMG. Are you telling me the (none / 0) (#24)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 13, 2009 at 04:00:26 PM EST
    attorneys and plaintiffs who are beyond redemption ALL live in CA?  

    Heh!! (none / 0) (#36)
    by NYShooter on Fri Mar 13, 2009 at 06:09:16 PM EST

    Yes, Shooter...it works (none / 0) (#39)
    by oldpro on Fri Mar 13, 2009 at 06:21:19 PM EST
    in business and in politics as well...and for the same reasons.

    It's your mom's "honey/vinegar" fly-catching example!


    Small Business Negotiations Too (none / 0) (#54)
    by daring grace on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 11:15:46 AM EST
    My partner is someone who gets angry and derisive in tense negotiations and it used to bug him enormously that I employed a strategy of "The Ruder They Get, The Politer I Get". It was mostly a default position because I'm no good at yelling.

    But, as you say, even if it doesn't bring opponents around, it usually disarms them and lowers their aggression levels to more manageable degrees.


    As far as I am concerned (5.00 / 5) (#13)
    by Jjc2008 on Fri Mar 13, 2009 at 01:46:26 PM EST
    Matthews has blood on his hands.  He can scream until hell freezes over that he was "against the war."  But he helped put W into office and drooled over W many, many times.  How does an anti war advocate say this:
    We're proud of our president. Americans love having a guy as president, a guy who has a little swagger, who's physical, who's not a complicated guy like [former President Bill] Clinton or even like [former Democratic presidential candidates Michael] Dukakis or [Walter] Mondale, all those guys, [George] McGovern. They want a guy who's president. Women like a guy who's president. Check it out. The women like this war. I think we like having a hero as our president. It's simple. We're not like the Brits. We don't want an indoor prime minister type, or the Danes or the Dutch or the Italians, or a [Russian Federation President Vladimir] Putin. Can you imagine Putin getting elected here? We want a guy as president.

    Seriously how Matthews or anyone say Matthews was anti war?   He drooled over W...as the dolt pretended to be a pilot.

    Matthews trashed any and everyone back then who criticized W....."the only ones who don't like him are whackos on the left"...

    I really wish progressives would stop buying the misogynistic man's spin.


    Tweety (none / 0) (#19)
    by Bluesage on Fri Mar 13, 2009 at 03:19:37 PM EST
    Yes, I do believe that lil Chrissy had his first traveling leg tingles when he saw Bush dressed up in his pilot costume.  During this last election he was having daily tingles at the mere site of O wearing anything.  He's an embarrassment.  

    Yikes (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Spamlet on Fri Mar 13, 2009 at 04:27:09 PM EST
    Yes, I do believe that lil Chrissy had his first traveling leg tingles when he saw Bush dressed up in his pilot costume.  During this last election he was having daily tingles at the mere site of O wearing anything.

    I just misread your second sentence as "during the last erection . . . "


    lil Chrissy (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Bluesage on Fri Mar 13, 2009 at 04:40:22 PM EST
    Actually, you may have the better word but I might change one letter.   He did seem to have an 18 month Orection during the election season. I haven't watched anything on MSNBC for months now so I wouldn't know if he got over it.  

    Matthews etc (none / 0) (#20)
    by Rashomon66 on Fri Mar 13, 2009 at 03:38:15 PM EST
    I've watched Matthews a lot over the years and actually he is more liberal than conservative. It is funny to read views claiming he is somehow a conservative. He is most definitely not. He did have a problem with Hillary which I won't deny. But you go over to the far right blogs and Matthews gets hammered over there for being too far left.
    Maybe he is doing something right since everyone hates him for different reasons?

    Your comment illustrates the amazing ability ... (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by cymro on Fri Mar 13, 2009 at 04:00:05 PM EST
    ... of the right wing in US politics to redefine the meaning of "liberal" and left wing" to include political views that anywhere else would be thought of as "moderate," "centrist," "center-right," or even "mainstream conservative".

    Ding! Ding! (none / 0) (#41)
    by Radiowalla on Fri Mar 13, 2009 at 06:25:20 PM EST

    No way in hell is (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Jjc2008 on Fri Mar 13, 2009 at 04:21:44 PM EST
    Matthews a liberal.  His personal hatred of the Clintons aside (would you care to explain why this so called centrist leaning liberal would despise the Clintons who are often described as centrist)his words about Bush, Guliani, Thompson spoke volumes.

    He is a misogynistic, sexist pig that has all kinds of issues with women in professional roles, let alone leadership roles.  He hangs out with and calls people like Tom Delay "buddy".  His family was republican and he lived in a very white suburb of Philly and went to LaSalle Prep school, an exclusive catholic school for white anglo catholic boys.  He claims to identify with "blue collar" Philly and I believe it is bogus.  I grew up not far from Matthews in one of the Steel Towns, a truly blue collar town and I have news for you...Matthews and his ilk looked down on our town back then as it had too many Italians, Polish and Black people (though those guys used a different set of words for our ethnic groups).

    Matthews voted for W by his own admission.  Trashed Al Gore with lies and spins all through '99.   How does ANYONE who calls himself centrist let alone liberal cheer for someone like W who was as right wing, neocon as it gets.

    You are either a friend of his spinning for him or  you are someone who is easily spun.


    Mes hommages to you. (none / 0) (#42)
    by Radiowalla on Fri Mar 13, 2009 at 06:25:41 PM EST
    Does that mean "up yours" or (none / 0) (#43)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 13, 2009 at 06:34:42 PM EST
    "pleased to meet you?"

    It just means (none / 0) (#44)
    by Radiowalla on Fri Mar 13, 2009 at 07:19:25 PM EST
    "my hommages"

    Just another way of saying "hat tip to you."  


    You conveniently (none / 0) (#50)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Mar 13, 2009 at 11:48:16 PM EST
    leave out the fact that he worked for Tip O'Neill and then Jimmy Carter.

    It's impossible to stuff Chris Matthews into a neat little box.  He doesn't fit.


    Matthews (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Bluesage on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 08:43:39 AM EST
    Fact:  It's been decades since he worked for O'Neill or Carter.  

    Fact:  Chrissy feels leg tingles for anyone who happens to be in power at the time.  

    Fact:  Chrissy's leg tingles and man crushes are all in the furtherance of his own career. Or, he's just a freak.


    The problem with Matthews... (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by Pol C on Fri Mar 13, 2009 at 04:29:57 PM EST
    ...isn't that he's an ideological tool. By and large, he's fairly cogent when it comes to issues and policy. The problem is that once personalities come into the discussion, he goes off the rails. Examples include his hatred of the Clintons and Al Gore, who, politically, are fellow travelers. On the other hand, you have this sycophantic attitude towards people like Tom DeLay, Dubya, and Cheney, which is never more conspicuous than when they're demonstrating what "tough" or "down-to-earth" guys they are. Personally, I think he resents the Clintons and Gore because they're of his generation and they're infinitely more accomplished than he is. His regard for the GOP types seems tied up in some adolescent fantasy of what it means to be a "real" man. Matthews seriously needs to grow up, but given that he's now in his sixties, I frankly doubt it will ever come to pass. My recommendation is not to watch him and hope that sooner or later he'll go away.

    If CW had an Id, it would be Matthews. (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Thanin on Fri Mar 13, 2009 at 04:43:04 PM EST
    The funny thing is (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 13, 2009 at 05:26:45 PM EST
    He worked for Democrats, including Tip O'Neill

    As a young man, Matthews supported Republican Barry Goldwater, but was inspired to become a Democrat by Eugene McCarthy's anti-Vietnam war platforms. When Matthews first arrived in Washington, D.C. he worked as an armed officer with the United States Capitol Police.[2] Subsequently, he served on the staffs of four Democratic members of Congress, including Senators Frank Moss and Edmund Muskie. He campaigned for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives from Pennsylvania's 4th congressional district in 1974, losing to incumbent Congressman Joshua Eilberg in the Democratic primary. Matthews received about 23% of the vote.[3] He was a presidential speechwriter during the Carter administration. Matthews later worked six years as a top aide to long-time Speaker of the House of Representatives Tip O'Neill, playing a direct role in many key political battles with the Reagan administration



    unfortunately, (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by cpinva on Fri Mar 13, 2009 at 03:11:01 PM EST
    So enjoy the fun with Cramer, but the real journalist culprits are still running around playing the same games.

    the daily show only runs for 30 minutes a night, including commercials. there just isn't enough time for mr. stewart to skewer everyone deserving of it.

    so no, i don't agree with mr. greenwald; cramer's an arrogant putz, who was goaded into finally appearing on the daily show, because he was embarassed in public, not because he was so eager to be a guest.

    exactly what did cramer do, that was so special? oh, he "acknowledged the validity" of "some" of the criticism. gee, he didn't really have much choice, now did he? not when his own words were played back to him on video. what was he supposed to do, say it was all faked tape? geez, give me a break here.

    as though what Stewart is saying is so self-evidently true and what Cramer/CNBC did is so self-evidently wrong. But there's absolutely nothing about Cramer that is unique when it comes to our press corps.

    yes it is, yes it is, and who said it was, other than greenwald?

    the self-evidentlies and the unique are not, by definition, mutually inclusive.

    if this is the best greenwald can do, he'd be better off saying nothing on the subject. he'd best hope that mr. stewart didn't read this drivel, he'll have an easy field day with it.

    Exactly (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by Claw on Fri Mar 13, 2009 at 04:03:04 PM EST
    Well put.  The fact is that Stewart DOES skewer the rest of the media for their hypocrisy, laziness, faux expertise, etc.  He's been doing it for years.  Cramer just happens to be the guy getting roasted at the moment.  And, let's be honest about this, he brought it all on himself.  When asked about Stewart making fun of him, the correct response would have been, "Oh, Jon's got a great show...it's a comedy show...no hard feelings."  Instead he gets into a war he can't win.  He's going up against a guy who's smarter, funny, and can always retreat to the position of "Hey I do a comedy show on the same network that shows South Park.  YOU'RE giving people financial advice on a NEWS channel."

    Not clear on your view (none / 0) (#21)
    by Rashomon66 on Fri Mar 13, 2009 at 03:47:29 PM EST
    My reading of this is that Greenwald says there are a lot of Cramer's out there in the media but none of them will come forward and admit that they are not doing their job as journalists should.
    Do you think Cramer is the ONLY journalist [if we can call him that] out there who is doing a bad job? Do you think the other journalists have been fair and balanced and doing the investigative job they should be?
    I am not sure what reading you take from this?
    But I completely agree with Greenwald here.

    no, not at all. (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by cpinva on Fri Mar 13, 2009 at 07:35:27 PM EST
    Do you think Cramer is the ONLY journalist [if we can call him that] out there who is doing a bad job? Do you think the other journalists have been fair and balanced and doing the investigative job they should be?

    and no one, but greenwald, ever suggested that mr. cramer was unique in this regard.

    my points, and i have them:

    1. cramer deserves no credit for either appearing on the Daily Show (see above), or acceding to the validity of "some" of the criticisms leveled at him. again, see above.

    greenwald seems to think he does. greenwald is an idiot. or just pathetically lazy. you make the call.

    2. cramer is hardly unique, in the sphere of modern-day "journalists". no one, not stewart or anyone else, other than greenwald, suggested that he was. yet, greenwald implies that others have.

    again, either an idiot, or just pathetically lazy in his work.

    is cramer a "journalist"? good question. i've been kind of pondering that, since i initially read this article.

    in my opinion (for what it's worth) if someone appears on what is presented as a "news" show, unless they are specifically identified as strictly an opiner (such as someone presenting an editorial), than i, and i suspect most other people, tend to assume they are presenting news.

    as such, i expect that what they present as fact is exactly that, or at least they legitimately believe it to be so. i expect the same of editorialists.

    when a cramer presents information as fact, he's acting in the guise of a journalist, and should be expected to adhere to accepted professional journalistic standards, such as they are.


    My impression of Stewart (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by kmblue on Fri Mar 13, 2009 at 06:22:09 PM EST
    I watched the interview with a friend--another "recovering journalist" who's done both local and network.

    My conclusion:  Stewart, the anchor on a FAKE news show, is asking the questions and doing the research the mainstream media HAS NOT DONE since September 11, 2001.

    Thanks, I'll sit down now.

    Blame (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by lentinel on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 01:11:54 AM EST
    I do not, cannot and will not blame the victims for trying to make a buck in the bizarre Bush economy.
    This is the way that people made money during the Bush years.
    The ones at the top, like Bush and Cheney, got away with it.
    The smaller investor, sold on 401Ks, thinking about trying to secure their future while holding down moderately paying jobs, got swamped.
    I throw my contempt on the Bush era ethics of government, upon business leaders and upon a press corrupted by greed and dreams of upward mobility.

    you've all hit here on the most important (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Baal on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 09:28:00 AM EST
    point about the whole thing.  It's not just CNBC and its not just business reporting, as Glenn and BTD note.

    In spite of our occasional differences around here in Left Blogistan, pointing out the corruption and incompetence of corporate media seems to be a common theme that runs through Atrios, Kos, Digby, Talk Left, Steve Bennen, Glenn Greenwald, Tom Tomorrow, to name just a few.

    One question is, are the corporate media merely stupid or are they bought and paid for?  A bit of both I think but I lean more towards "bought and paid for".  This is because the stupidity always seems to skew in one direction. I think the ineffectiveness of our media is one of the biggest threats facing the nation.

    Whose Buying? (none / 0) (#56)
    by pluege on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 03:50:02 PM EST
    If corporate media were "bought and paid for' someone would have to be putting up the bucks. I think its much less than that.

    Somehow we tend to think of corporate media differently than GM or Kellogs or DuPont or GE (oh wait), but Time-Warner, Viacom, ABC-Disney, News Corp., etc. are exactly the same thing. They are huge conglomerates with dominating vertical and horizontal market positions. They are all run by corporate boards whose membership is exclusively the ubber wealthy. If these plutocrats, from their corporate perches can impress upon their minions what is important to them (and why couldn't they and why wouldn't they), then the entirety of their empires would reproduce and sell to anyone listening or watching - like nearly all of the American people - their view of things. This is all it is.

    It doesn't take skullduggery at all, just a little targeted carrot and stick application and each empire in its entirety moves the way the plutocrats at the top want it too. And since collectively the 6/7 firms, all similarly made up and controlled by like-minded plutocrats, and which corporations control 90% or more of what Americans see and hear, their message is the only message Americans know.


    I completely agree w/ Greenwald.

    Unlike everyone everywhere else, I'm embarrassed by Stewart going after such easy pickings and leaving the real problems virtually untouched. It feels so childish and Lord of the Flies-ish to me.

    This isn't to absolve Cramer but, good gawd almighty, people, I'm no financial genius, not by any means, and even I figured out years ago financial advisors and the like are about padding their own wallets, usually at the  expense of mine.

    Another one that didn't watch it. (5.00 / 9) (#5)
    by lobary on Fri Mar 13, 2009 at 01:08:16 PM EST
    This isn't about Jim Cramer.


    Jon Stewart made that perfectly clear during the interview.


    Do you believe late night infomercials which promise you can lose 20 pounds tonight!! while you sleep!!!, all by taking a little pill?

    Would you focus all attention on the editor of such infomercials instead of on an entire economy based on easy money and Something For Nothing and all the underpinnings to the consumer economy?

    What the hell good would that do?

    Is The Motley Fool or other such idiotic "financial tools" exempt from this criticism?

    Sorry, but I've watched the blogosphere AND television the past week and seen the feeding frenzy on Cramer. Stewart took the easy way out and went for low hanging fruit.

    And that, lobary, is a freaking embarrassment.


    If you had watched any Daily, you would know (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by DFLer on Fri Mar 13, 2009 at 01:24:57 PM EST
    that the interview was in response to statements by Cramer criticizing the Daily show, in response to a lampoon of Cramer by the Daily Show.

    there's nothing wrong or chicken with this dialog. In fact Cramer did indeed step up. So there.


    He uses cramer being on... (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by Thanin on Fri Mar 13, 2009 at 01:31:17 PM EST
    as an opportunity to blast the entire financial media.  Just watch the interview.

    And don't forget (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by BernieO on Fri Mar 13, 2009 at 04:05:05 PM EST
    the media was blamed for helping inflate the dot com bubble by touting stocks that were overvalued. They clearly have not learned anything from that experience and deserve all the blame they are getting and more.

    Another thing Stewart talked about is the fact that so many of us have a big stake in the market now that we have so much money in 401k's. Imagine if Republicans had succeeded in getting us to put our SS money in, too.
    The silence about this interview on MSNBC was noticeable this morning. NBC deserves to lose all credibility as a news organization. Sadly, they are doing well and Brian Williams has regained the #1 spot.


    Silence from the Peacock (5.00 / 0) (#34)
    by lobary on Fri Mar 13, 2009 at 05:12:25 PM EST
    Interesting (5.00 / 0) (#37)
    by DFLer on Fri Mar 13, 2009 at 06:09:27 PM EST
    which refutes an earlier claim that Stewart and the MSNBC crew are all the same and working for the same "boss".

    Yesterday on MSNBC (none / 0) (#55)
    by DFLer on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 01:32:27 PM EST
    there was not a peep about this story, with the exception of Rachel Maddow.

    I find that rather shocking and chilling. All those shows often use clips from Jon Stewart lampoons.


    Not only did you not watch (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by lobary on Fri Mar 13, 2009 at 01:36:09 PM EST
    You haven't actually read Greenwald's piece, either. He agrees with Stewart, he's just using it as a jumping off point to criticize the media establishment. Why is that Jon Stewart's burden, too? Was he supposed to go off on a tangent about Judy Miller or Tim Russert with Jim Cramer sitting opposite him?

    Of course Jim Cramer is an easy target, but he brought this on himself by publicly chastising Stewart's perfectly legitimate criticism of CNBC, a criticism that was initially triggered by Rick Santelli's amoral screed on the floor of the Chicago exchange.

    It seems to me that you're doing the Jon Stewart backlash thing just to wear the contrarian hat for the moment.


    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by KeysDan on Fri Mar 13, 2009 at 02:58:38 PM EST
    Jon Stewart was just doing what he does, and does so well: reporting events as they are reported.  Certainly, cutting humor, but done so with the sword of video clips.  

    Brian Williams is a tool... (none / 0) (#14)
    by Jjc2008 on Fri Mar 13, 2009 at 01:50:59 PM EST
    and a man I could never respect, especially after this.  Williams is a confessed admirer of Rush Limbaugh, saying:
    "I do listen to Rush. I listen to it from a radio in my office, or depending on my day, if I'm in the car, I will listen to Rush" and protesting that "I think Rush has actually yet to get the credit he is due." Williams invited Limbaugh on as a guest several times to the show he hosted prior to becoming anchor and royally referred to Limbaugh as "our friend Rush Limbaugh."

    Williams displays the attitude of a neocon. I refuse to watch his program.

    NBC, CNBC and MSNBC are all the (5.00 / 0) (#16)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Mar 13, 2009 at 02:14:53 PM EST
    same. Won't watch any of them, myself.

    CBS and Katie Couric are just as bad.

    I haven't found reason to lump Charlie Gibson in on the journalists gone sour, yet.

    Perhaps the downturn of the economy will start shutting off enough cable connections to make them feel the struggles they so happily contributed to.


    Charles Gibson (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by kmblue on Fri Mar 13, 2009 at 06:19:59 PM EST
    was actually LAUGHED AT by the audience during a presidential debate.
    What brought on the chuckles?  He told Barack Obama that his plan to raise taxes on people earning more than 250k a year would negatively affect SCHOOLTEACHERS.

    ha ha

    Yup Charlie has his finger on the pulse of the people!


    Odd mistake for anyone to make, but (none / 0) (#46)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Mar 13, 2009 at 08:21:22 PM EST
    he still doesn't show the kind of political biases the others do, or push his narrow opinions at the viewers as though they are stupid if they don't think the same way.

    Sorry, your example is weak.


    I disagree. (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by kmblue on Fri Mar 13, 2009 at 08:35:23 PM EST
    Charlie Gibson may be a hell of a nice guy, but that night he revealed himself to be one of the well paid, out of touch, media elite.

    Gibson's concern was an Obama tax hike might hurt Gibson.  And guess what.  He was right.


    Disagree as much as you want (none / 0) (#49)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Mar 13, 2009 at 10:47:53 PM EST
    I'm not relating at all to what you are saying and see no connection whatsoever between your thoughts and mine.

    I merely said that Gibson doesn't present his opinions as news with the same intensity the others do. Your debate moderating example has nothing to do with news. Nor does the accuracy or falacy of your view he's an elitist.

    One off-the-mark comment he made is all you can come up with. How does he possibly compare to the NBC trio of stations celebrities. Don't answer that...unless you just want to argue with yourself. I'm done with this thread.


    My point exactly (none / 0) (#15)
    by vicndabx on Fri Mar 13, 2009 at 01:52:20 PM EST
    Would you focus all attention on the editor of such infomercials instead of on an entire economy based on easy money and Something For Nothing and all the underpinnings to the consumer economy?

    Who cares about Cramer, or CNBC for that matter.  I'm sure those folks managing my 401K are just as guilty.  The real issue is a lack of integrity and a devotion to shallow ideals that permeates too many aspects of our society.  Journalism, the financial sector, feh, everyone is too busy looking out for numero uno.

    I deleted an off topic comment (none / 0) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 13, 2009 at 05:01:18 PM EST