|
Lord Lambeth posted:If you think Maddow is polarizing I wonder what you think of Keith Olbermann. I like him, but I'll admit a lot of his shows descended into yelling at various conservatives. I thought Olbermann was actually pretty annoying. He tried to beat the Fox News folks at their own game - angry, sometimes nasty, usually overblown, and always bloviating - and it really didn't work. Just like conservatives seem to have problems with the idea of what makes things funny (they seem not to be able to quite get the distinction that laughing *at* doesn't make things funny), I don't think liberals can really pass off that kind of harsh, judgmental approach. It requires a "world is black and white" mentality that liberal thought doesn't handle well, because the world is gray. Maddow's approach, and frankly, Jon Stewart's as well, works because it's evidence-based. She doesn't call names, but she calls bullshit when she sees it. Stewart does the same thing. That's why, I think, Colbert is so brilliant on multiple levels. How he can be funny and yet completely pull off the right-wing parody to the point that many conservatives don't think he's joking, or think he's joking about joking. Either way, the fact is that he does it as a buffoon. The siege mentality of conservatives is such that the same kind of buffoonery just won't work for them, the idea of showing that kind of weakness is not something they're really open to. And humor from the position of strength isn't really all that funny, it just becomes ridicule.
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2012 17:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 16:20 |
|
|
itskage posted:From that article alone Rubio doesn't sound bad, but the problem will be the transformation he'll need to go through in order to win the Republican primary. Just look at the issues Mitt Romney had to flop on in order to align with the Republican Platform. http://www.gq.com/news-politics/politics/201212/marco-rubio-interview-gq-december-2012 quote:
Badera fucked around with this message at 17:52 on Nov 25, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2012 17:48
|
|
|
Walter posted:Maddow's approach, and frankly, Jon Stewart's as well, works because it's evidence-based. She doesn't call names, but she calls bullshit when she sees it. Stewart does the same thing. This is also why her book is loving incredibly good. It's highly impartial when it comes to pointing fingers (which she does, at practically every major US political figure since WWII) and is backed up solidly with sources. The thing is, it's a narrow enough topic to allow for a certain kind of approachability that comes with writing a full book about ~50 years of removing all safeguards against just going to war/killing people whenever a president says so. Basically, when it comes to the typical Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly books, they're pablum to be consumed by people who already agreed with them, whereas Maddow - at least in print - makes an argument which transcends "hurr durr bad <party>" and attacks apolitical distinctions like executive power. That's sort of the core of the difference between people like Maddow and people like Hannity. Maddow doesn't start with "Democrats are great and conservatives are poo poo" whereas Hannity starts from "Liberals want to enslave everyone."
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2012 17:51
|
|
|
To an extent, it's the difference between deductive and inductive approaches. I think that's probably oversimplifying more than a bit, but the fact is that when you approach the world from a pre-determined conclusion, the tendency is to try to fit evidence to support that conclusion and disregard evidence that counters it. By contrast, if you follow the evidence, it requires a more nuanced approach and a bit more careful reading of the arguments, but it leads to a more accurate portrayal of the world as it is. Which is why the joke about reality having a liberal bias is actually 100% true, if you consider "liberal bias" to be a sign of "evidence-based reasoning." The right-wing worldview requires mental gymnastics and the use of various fallacious debate tactics to de-legitimize those making rational counter-arguments. Which is why folks like Hannity and O'Reilly rarely attack the argument, they attack the arguer instead. If you can cast doubt on the person making the argument, you can (theoretically) cast doubt on the argument, and so throw out those facts that don't play into the conclusion you've already drawn.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2012 18:02
|
|
|
To touch on the whole "Republicans culture war mindset." I wouldn't say they're totally unjustified in claiming liberals are trying to start a culture war. Any conservative with half a brain, and even those with just a stem, they all know the score. Everybody knows white people have it great. That's why they're so horrified at the thought of equal distribution or fairness, because they know exactly what kind of poo poo goes on. Their worst fear is becoming any bit like the people they unintentionally oppress. "My god, can you imagine some welfare queen rolling by in their Lexus while you and your family starve on the street?" The thought of a poor/minorities reality is too paralyzing to comprehend. White people are winning the culture war with so few losses that nobody needs or wants to notice there's a war going on. Bring some of those losses back to the whites and suddenly this war they've happily forgotten about is reintroduced and the accusations of "who started it" begin to fly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2012 18:17
|
|
|
Hard-line leftist Glenn Greenwald wrote an article which began with a compelling rundown of how Fox News and MSNBC are and aren't equivalent. To sum up, they both have a good vs. evil tribalist mentality in which the Democrats are Good and the Republicans are Bad. However, MSNBC supports at least some good journalism, they have Joe Scarborough on there every day, they are willing to criticize their own party, and they are nowhere near close to lying as much as Fox News. I like Maddow, she's interesting and entertaining. I could not stand Olbermann, though, not even from the very beginning, with his "Mr. President, this war is not about your golf game" special comment. President Bush giving up golf while people were dying in Iraq demonstrated an understanding of diplomacy and messaging and I wish Bush had capable of that sensitivity more often -- I thought it was a bullshit criticism from Olbermann, the first of many. Can't stand much else from MSNBC either. I was watching either Ed or Lawrence, I can't remember which, and they were covering how AFA homophobe rear end in a top hat Bryan Fischer was saying that a boycott of gay-rights-supporting Google would be difficult, and Ed/Lawrence was like, "Yeah, because then they would have no way to download their PORN!" and then he went on and on for like five minutes about how red states download more porn and it was so stupid and cheap. It ended with a Brokeback Mountain joke. I turned on MSNBC the other day, they were talking about Benghazi with Bill Richardson, and the anchor asked something like, "What do you think of McCain's criticism of the president, considering that the whole Benghazi thing is a mindless worthless stream of bullshit?" Which it is, but that's not really the kind of journalism I want.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2012 18:52
|
|
|
The Brown Menace posted:Anyone who is still a teabagger in TYOOL 2012 probably won't be swayed nowadays by anything but someone hosing President Obama down with bleach, desperately hoping he'll turn white. Now I've got the mental image of James Washington from Iron Sky having all his melanin removed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2012 18:53
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea posted:I could not stand Olbermann, though, not even from the very beginning, with his "Mr. President, this war is not about your golf game" special comment. President Bush giving up golf while people were dying in Iraq demonstrated an understanding of diplomacy and messaging and I wish Bush had capable of that sensitivity more often -- I thought it was a bullshit criticism from Olbermann, the first of many. Didn't Bush start golfing again like a few months later? So much for that brave stance. Yeah Olbermann was a bit of a blowhard but he was literally the first mainstream commentator who had the guts to say anything critical of Bush post-Iraq. Before that no one in the mainstream press would have dared do such a thing. He broke the ice and made it easier for others to be hired who actually asked hard questions about Bush's horrible policies and for that alone he should be respected.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2012 03:06
|
|
|
Badera posted:[Rubio hedges on the age of the Earth] Haha what a wimp! And look at this guy! quote:What I’ve said to them is that I believe that God created the universe and that the six days in the Bible may not be six days as we understand it … it may not be 24-hour days, and that’s what I believe. I know there’s always a debate between those who read the Bible literally and those who don’t, and I think it’s a legitimate debate within the Christian community of which I’m a part. My belief is that the story that the Bible tells about God creating this magnificent Earth on which we live—that is essentially true, that is fundamentally true. Now, whether it happened exactly as we might understand it reading the text of the Bible: That, I don’t presume to know.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2012 03:10
|
|
|
My opinion about aligns with Charlie Brooker's opinion of Olbermann...and of Bill O'Reilly...and especially of Glenn Beck. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2012 05:03
|
|
|
beatlegs posted:Yeah Olbermann was a bit of a blowhard but he was literally the first mainstream commentator who had the guts to say anything critical of Bush post-Iraq. Before that no one in the mainstream press would have dared do such a thing. He broke the ice and made it easier for others to be hired who actually asked hard questions about Bush's horrible policies and for that alone he should be respected. This, times a thousand. This is the significance of Keith Olbermann, is that he was the first when no one else dared to be. You have to remember or transport yourself back in time to the "Dixie-Chicking" era of post 9/11 America where the Bush Administration actively promoted the idea that anyone critical of Bush or the war in Iraq should shut the gently caress up and be afraid of them. It took Olbermann and Cindy Sheehan to crack that facade, and there were plenty after them but they were the first. I didn't really care for Keith's polemic screed style either but he has to get credit for being first.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2012 05:16
|
|
|
Have to agree with the above post. Olbermann is by all accounts a smug, condescending rear end in a top hat and a horrible jerk but he had the guts to call Bush out not just for Iraq but for all the heinous poo poo he pulled i.e. torture, rendition, warrantless wire-tapping, Valerie Plame, all of it. No one else had the balls to risk a ratings hit to do the right thing and despite his other less than desirable personal qualities, Olbermann did it when no one else would. For that he's a god damned hero.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2012 06:47
|
|
|
Maddow also likely wouldn't be where she is now if it wasn't for Olbermann. Dude aggressively lobbied for the network to pick her up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2012 07:07
|
|
|
Yea Olbermann's a great example of how a total piece of poo poo can sometimes wind up doing good things by accident.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2012 07:39
|
|
|
Badera posted:http://www.gq.com/news-politics/politics/201212/marco-rubio-interview-gq-december-2012 Let me specify that I am not pulling for Rubio. When I said he doesn't sound bad, I mean he doesn't sound bad as a candidate for the GOP. The point of my post was to point out that even if he's different and appeals to a broader spectrum of voters right now, it wouldn't necessarily make a difference once he shifts his views to sync with the GOP in order to win the nomination.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2012 07:49
|
|
|
At first I thought this was a parody but it seems genuine: http://conservativefactcheck.com/ Their proof that all these other fact checking sites are liberal activists:  http://conservativefactcheck.com/content/articles/50 From an article complaining about Bobby Jindal saying that higher taxes on the rich might be ok: quote:The Bush tax cuts were only enacted ten years ago. Trickle-down takes time, and the economy will begin to see the rewards soon -- that is, of course, unless Obama is successful in raising taxes on the wealthy. If that's the case, he will have undone ten years of economic progress. Edit: oh god that site is so good, everything I click on is a goldmine. quote:It's a familiar scenario: you receive a particularly juicy story about Obama in email and forward it to your friends. Then, somebody on your mailing list tries to ruin the fun by sending you a link from Snopes which declares your story to be false. What do you do if you know it's true? Vodos fucked around with this message at 16:53 on Nov 26, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2012 16:51
|
|
|
Vodos posted:That's right, the recession was economic progress! In a "Great Leap Forward" sense, sure. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2012 16:53
|
|
|
Vodos posted:At first I thought this was a parody but it seems genuine: http://conservativefactcheck.com/ That page posted:To have any semblance of fairness, PolitiFact should play it 50/50 and present an equal number of lies from both sides.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2012 16:56
|
|
|
I love that so much, because if anything Politifact, in its obsession with avoiding the label of 'left wing', has been leaning right if anything. They called that 'Republicans will destroy Medicare' statement the lie of the year because they'd still call the gutted and destroyed program 'Medicare' for crying out loud.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2012 17:00
|
|
|
quote:They also unfairly tarnish Michele Bachmann as a liar, when anybody who follows her already understands that many of her statements aren't meant to be truthful in the first place -- she simply says what she feels. What?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2012 17:32
|
|
|
^^^^^^ LOL "It's Ok if she totally misinformes people, it's what she feels. VACCINATION CAUSES AUTISM!!!! in her heart." wixard posted:Conservative socialism: redistribute facts, not wealth! I love the self delusion; "To-to be fair, you've got to show just as many of their lies! Why aren't you showing their lies!" The answer being of course they don't lie as much.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2012 17:37
|
|
|
Wow. Not 'guys, stop lying, politifact is calling us out!' but 'politifact is unfairly showing us lie!' Maybe, idk, there just aren't that many lies from the left compared to the right? Could that be it? Christ 
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2012 17:39
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:What? She feels like it ought to be the truth, or she heard it from someone else who thinks like her, so it must be the truth. Political partisans of all stripes do it all the time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2012 17:43
|
|
|
Jesus christ this site:quote:Romney's right: practically nobody dies from a lack of health insurance. Guy seems to use a lot of words he doesn't understand. That's 1 percent of US deaths per year. One in a hundred people who die die because they did not have health insurance. quote:Debunking the NOAA's October State of the Climate This can not be real.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2012 17:57
|
|
|
Warchicken posted:Wow. Not 'guys, stop lying, politifact is calling us out!' but 'politifact is unfairly showing us lie!' Maybe, idk, there just aren't that many lies from the left compared to the right? Could that be it? Christ No you see the liberals lie much more than conservatives, look at all these RE: RE: RE: I was sent!
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2012 18:00
|
|
|
http://lgf.bz/TnNGHM This guy thinks the guy who runs the site is also behind some kind of Obama forgery crap that Pamela Gellar was also behind. I think that makes sense. Little Green Footballs is like the Keith Olbermann of liberal blogs these days, but sometimes it's a welcome antidote to the opposition. At least LGF was once on the other side so he has a personal vendetta against these freaks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2012 18:00
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:This can not be real.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2012 18:05
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:It reads like a well crafted satire site, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out it's sincere. Anything to keep the reality bubble intact. Conservatives in general have been skirting the edge of Poe's Law for a while now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2012 18:11
|
|
|
quote:They also unfairly tarnish Michele Bachmann as a liar, when anybody who follows her already understands that many of her statements aren't meant to be truthful in the first place -- she simply says what she feels. If this is sincere, the scales have just fallen from my eyes and I finally, finally understand right-wing authoritarians. e: VVVV I knew about "truthiness" but I'd never seen it actually articulated as though it were a legitimate rebuttal to a fact check 
woke wedding drone fucked around with this message at 19:17 on Nov 26, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2012 18:29
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:If this is sincere, the scales have just fallen from my eyes and I finally, finally understand right-wing authoritarians. No that's very much a root in these people's thinking. "Common Sense" basically means gut feelings and what you assume to be true, and they have this insane idea of the past where back in the good old days before we had safety regulations we just used gut feelings and everything was perfect. It makes total sense, to them, that she's not LYING to anyone, she's just saying what she feels, and well the mean ol media is saying she's lying with their 'fact checkers' and number crunchers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2012 18:52
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:If this is sincere, the scales have just fallen from my eyes and I finally, finally understand right-wing authoritarians. We've finally gone full circle. "Truthiness", which is known to be a parody, is now be unironically used. A confirmed parody is now being used in a serious manner. Holy crap, Obama being re-elected really did break the right's brain. This is going to be fun to watch.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2012 19:27
|
|
|
Yea it comes from a blend of not understanding the topic and worship of 'the good old days'. Like, a good example is in stuff like seatbelt or helmet laws, back in their day they didn't have any laws saying to wear them and THEY'RE alive so they don't need some government pencil pusher telling them to wear a helmet, IE when those laws are brought up they fight them because 'Common Sense' says they don't need them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2012 19:33
|
|
|
fade5 posted:We've finally gone full circle. "Truthiness", which is known to be a parody, is now be unironically used. A confirmed parody is now being used in a serious manner. Holy crap, Obama being re-elected really did break the right's brain. This is going to be fun to watch. Well, this has been going on for years and years and almost destroyed our entire financial system, government and way of life by repeatedly electing people who say and do what they feel rather than what the facts say they should do or feel. It kind of isn't funny anymore. I think this is why so many conservatives don't understand that Colbert is making fun of them - they unironically do what he is doing. That's just loving scary.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2012 20:13
|
|
|
Glitterbomber posted:Yea Olbermann's a great example of how a total piece of poo poo can sometimes wind up doing good things by accident. So his decision to criticize Bush when nobody else had the guts to and his lobbying efforts to get Maddow hired were accidents. All righty then.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2012 21:20
|
|
|
beatlegs posted:So his decision to criticize Bush when nobody else had the guts to and his lobbying efforts to get Maddow hired were accidents. All righty then. Well his going after Bush without giving a gently caress came from the fact that he literally does nothing but rant and rave about right wing people using as much hyperbole and froth as possible. So yes, the side effect of 'he blindly treats every right winger like the worst person' was 'he didn't give a gently caress about the insane reverence people suddenly had for him while he was getting people killed'.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2012 21:23
|
|
|
God knows it would've been wrong to gloss over all of the half-dozen sane and rational conservatives who were in power.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2012 21:36
|
|
|
Here's a news item for those of us who've wondered how Fox News might react towards a guest who opines that they might not actually be "fair and balanced":quote:Co-anchor Jon Scott interviewed Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and author Thomas Ricks, who has covered the military for decades, about his new book "The Generals." Scott asked Ricks weigh in on the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and Sen. John McCain's criticisms of Amb. Susan Rice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2012 21:42
|
|
|
Sydney Bottocks posted:Here's a news item for those of us who've wondered how Fox News might react towards a guest who opines that they might not actually be "fair and balanced": Ahahaha I think this actually happened while I was at work, I heard part of this in the background but wasn't paying attention. Definitely the little bit at the beginning and what the female broadcaster says about Cyber Monday at the end. It would be great if more of Fox's guests would call them out on the ridiculous overhype of Benghazi like this. Soon you'd be left with Hannity and Neil Cavuto interviewing each other.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2012 21:57
|
|
|
Sydney Bottocks posted:*Thomas Ricks* I have his book on order. I understand he spends a lot of time beating the tar out of Tommy Franks' record, and I'm looking forward to reading it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2012 22:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 16:20 |
|
|
Sydney Bottocks posted:Here's a news item for those of us who've wondered how Fox News might react towards a guest who opines that they might not actually be "fair and balanced": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbUz3pIPmTY
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2012 00:27
|
|