Jesus, these people are stupid.
Here are three important folks - a journalist/media personality, a former prosecutor/media personality, and a Pulitzer Prize winner/media personality - and, though they can each summon a fog of words, not one of them is capable of seeing the obvious and stating it as a jumping off point for an interesting and honest discussion. For instance, not once in this conversation probing media bias, during this clip at least, do they give context by mentioning the John Edwards blackout. Was anyone even considering how bad the media bias was until the public noticed not one outlet, but The National Enquirer, was reporting Obama's potential vice-presidential nominee/attorney general had fallen for a moonbeam?
And while Dan Abrams admits the media fell in love with Barack Obama, and that love (betrayal?) hurt Hillary Clinton - which, in our book, is also a major no-no: they're just supposed to report the news, not make or determine it - Abrams fails to mention their actions also hurt the media, because it further signaled the public couldn't rely on what they were saying. And, yes, Kathleen Parker is just oblivious to her own role in the Sarah Palin story - so who's the airhead now?
And has anybody ever explained why "all of them" isn't a good enough answer to the question "What magazines have you read?" If so, we haven't seen it. Has anyone ever explained what it is about Katie Couric that makes other media types consider her intelligent - though that's an opinion the general public doesn't seem to share?
It's no wonder we find the internet more informative, and fascinating, than anything these bozos can conjure up, because engaging with these people - with nothing more than a television screen between us - is too much of a temptation for us to want to pull an Elvis and just blast the damned thing to smithereens.
"And has anybody ever explained why "all of them" isn't a good enough answer to the question "What magazines have you read?" If so, we haven't seen it."
ReplyDeleteBoy, where to start. I think you'll find that most people, whether they subscribe, buy from the shop, or read in the library, can tell you very well what they read. Not only that, they can tell you which bits they like, and where they think certain columnists go wrong.
It's a senseless thing to be evasive about since the well-informed will only doubt your credibility more.
There are leaders who are prolific readers and speed read over breakfast so it's not a question of having a busy schedule. It's more an essential requirement of leading the free world.
That is, if you're not going to make costly mistakes on a regular basis.
And one more thing:
ReplyDeleteIt's a senseless thing to be evasive about since the well-informed will only doubt your credibility more.
Sure, give the liberals - who you know are out to get you - ammo by telling them you maybe read Right-Wing journals? Sure.
It's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" set-up.
Whatever: Sarah's doing fine without you.