The worst mainstream TV journalism of the month
Candy Crowley | AP
Candy Crowley’s Nov. 18 interview of Sen. Dick Durbin and Rep. Tom Price was the worst piece of mainstream TV journalism that I have seen this month. Here is the video and the transcript.
Durbin, a stalwart Illinois Democrat, and Price, a Georgia Republican, are key negotiators over the budget impasse, the so-called fiscal cliff. The interview took place on State Of The Union, CNN’s flagship Sunday political program, which Crowley currently moderates. It is broadcast world-wide.
Price predictably laid out and defended the Republican positions. Quickly, Crowley seemed to forget her role of moderator, and went on a leftist attack against Price. Bizarrely, but appropriately given the circumstances, Dick Durbin assumed the moderating role. At times he seemingly defended Price from Crowley’s attack, with chastising interjections such as:
“Candy, you have to listen closely…”
and
“Candy, you have to be careful.”
As bad as it was, the interview does not surpass Crowley’s own personal journalistic low – last month’s infamous second presidential debate, which she moderated. That debate will go down in history for the exchange on Libya when Crowley injected herself into the issue, decisively taking Obama’s side. As if the unprecedented sorry spectacle was not enough, most independent analysts disagree with her declaration that Obama was factually correct and Romney, in error.
Crowley’s two amateurish performances, each beamed to a worldwide audience, have inspired me to suggest that Dan dedicate a slot on this blog for folks to share links to what they think was the previous month’s worst piece of mainstream broadcast journalism. For example, it could be the suggested theme on OPEN thread on the first day of each month. I suspect many entertaining and eye popping clips are generated each month. Let’s see if Dan bites.
In any case, Candy Crowley’s Durbin / Price interview is the worst piece of TV journalism I have seen so far this month. That places her work at the top of the stink heap for the second consecutive month.
How long will CNN keep Candy Crowley on their All-Star Team?
—————————-
Note from Dan: Let’s try this Dec. 1 and see where it goes. I can tell you right now that “Fox and Friends” is going to be a perennial leader in the nominations.
November 26, 2012 - 6:00 AM
Thanks to my mom’s visit, I was treated to 3 days of Fox News. It was 3 days of them screaming “THIS (whatever they were talking about at the moment) IS A TAX ON THE MIDDLE CLASS”. That and that Black Friday shopping is a sign of “desperation” afoot in the country, because certainly “desperation” presents itself as compelling need for cheap plastic crap at a negligable savings, at 2:00am.
to be honest i thought the interview was a good one…..she let the re-pub-liken state over and over the same rhetoric we have heard since the grand old party chose the dim wit romney as its nominee…..we will not raise taxes on the super rich…..durbin stated exactly what the dim-o-crats won the election on….nothing will get done…..she didn’t interfere with the two bums at all….she did try to get a straight answer….but she didnt get either one to say anything different than what has been said all along…..the career re-pub-liken politicians believe they are right in their dumb policies and dont have to listen to the american people….whom they list as takers and wasters….i am one of the takers…..i earned my social security….i pay for my medicare…..and i have never been on welfare or government assistance….yet the re-pub-likens dismiss me as a citizen that takes…to …. with all the bums that draw a salary as a senator or a representative in a good for nothing congress
Sounds awful, Mark J. Maybe I should watch them, but for the most part I avoid the Sunday morning partisan talking point fests. I realize that occasionally news happens there, but I don’t like to start my Sunday yelling at the TV screen.
…crowley is no more, no less, than an opinion journalist wrapped in…well, un-camouflaged bias.
Given that no one, even someone retired with nothing better to do can possibly watch all of the news shows, this is just a gigantic waste of time and effort. Not to mention the prism we each see through will have the same results as all other topics.
I do not even need to watch the interview to know that I disagree with Mark on every point. Crowley has made a successful career out of trying to get answers out of people determined not to give them and she is informed and intelligent on the subjects she inquires after.
As to the asinine debate issue, Romney should have shut up after the third or fourth insistence that he was right when factually he was not. It was never Crowley’s fault that he did not have the good sense to phrase his accusation correctly. The typical right wing parsing of every phrase and the frenzy over the entire Benghazi issue has been a sorry spectacle given the atrocious violations they let slide without even comment for 8 long hard years of the Bush regime.
oh, by the way, great idea, Mark J.
Sandi#5 – The suggestion is simply that if you happen to see a TV journalist do an absolutely terrible job, to the point where its laughable, save the link for the beginning of the month. Then share it with everyone with a few sentence introduction of what the screw-up is.
Simple stuff that anyone can do.
Mark
Most people who revere themselves as independent thinkers are really just confused. But I have to give you credit. You really put some thought into your observations and they are (mostly) right on target. Most libs would have loved what Candy did, but you really saw through the media bias.
Now if I can just get you to work on Dan a little bit.
Re: Kristen @ 8:18 am
I would say “my empathy” had I not fully and explicitly experienced similar weekends with my mother-in-law, in the past. She, like far too many had no concept of agreeing-to-disagree and then moving on to common ground.
So. I say, I understand and sympathize.
Mark, I’ve watched the clip and I don’t share your sense of outrage over Crowley’s performance.
My perception of Durbin’s comments that you quote are not that he was lecturing Crowley and sticking up for the poor, victimized Rep. Price. Instead, Durbin was addressing listeners of the show when he said stuff like, “Candy, you’ve got to be careful” or whatever. He was highlighting the nuance implicit in Price’s statements, as Price was attempting to avoid Crowley’s questions, and was telling LISTENERS to pay attention. The problem is, the nuance was fake and Crowley realized that before Durbin did.
Keep in mind that Price was saying, repeatedly, that tax increases on the rich are not the answer. With that, he was building a straw man, a pretense that it’s the ONLY answer Obama/Democrats are offering. He was ruling them out after pretending that it’s the only thing Democrats are offering. That’s BS and Crowley’s worst “offense” is that she called him out on it.
All Price was offereing was a warmed-over version of Romney’s tax plan, the tune those Fix-the-Debt CEOs are singing now, which Paul Krugman effectively destroyed in his column Sunday.
“Mark
Most people who revere themselves as independent thinkers are really just confused. But I have to give you credit. You really put some thought into your observations and they are (mostly) right on target. Most libs would have loved what Candy did, but you really saw through the media bias.
Now if I can just get you to work on Dan a little bit.”
–Comment by Terps
Terps, honestly, did you watch the clip? Did you read the transcript? Did you spot the 16-story-tall straw man Price was trying to build? Would you honestly have respected Crowley more if she just sat back and allowed him to sling that utter BS?
Duh Dan! Obviously terps and Mark J both would have preferred her to let him prattle on with his talking points.
Dan#10 Senator Durbin is an old-school class-act member of the so called World’s Greatest Deliberative Body. As such, he is the master in the art of decorum and subtle rhetoric that often is designed to serve multiple purposes.
Coming from folks like Durbin, the language chosen was hardly flaterng to Crowley.
Thank God we still have folks like Durbin coming onto TV programs in an age of Candy Crowleys, Fox Newsers and Sarah Palins.
Thank god there ares still
I do not even think we all see the same clip! Price was desperately peddling the meme that unless something is a total solution and does not raise taxes it is DOA. Durbin was saying that revenue has to come from somewhere and reforms will need to be made or it is DOA.
SOSO, and Crowley was more than right to call them out on it. They are still saying the same thing they were 6 months ago.
I will predict that this grand compromise will be the ugly egg that no one claims to have laid.
To quote David Hawkings daily briefing, “The fiscal cliff remains 36 days out on the horizon, almost certainly enough time for that metaphor to be overused into oblivion.”
BTW, w/ a t/h to Hawkings & Paul M. Krawzak, as I had not seen this elsewhere:
“But even more important news was made this morning by Eric Cantor; he didn’t quite thumb Grover Norquist in the eye, but he said on MSNBC that finding a way to back off the fiscal cliff was more important than living up to the Americans for Tax Reform pledge — which he signed as a young state legislator from Richmond more than a decade ago. The House majority leader said that while he wasn’t “warming” to a tax increase — and would still oppose higher marginal rates for the rich — the automatic spending cuts and revenue increases in store at the start of the year have rendered the no-new-tax pledge obsolete.”
Some time back, I pointed to quotes by major GOP players a no longer using the “no-new-taxes / no tax increases / no revenue increases” but rather focusing on “tax rates.” Maybe, just maybe, a comprise can be found in shutting down some of the more egregious “Tax Expenditures” (i.e., spending programs implemented through the tax code, via special tax credits, deductions, exclusions, exemptions, deferrals, decelerated deprecation, etc).
For example, why should the middle class subsidize thoroughbred race horse owners? IMHO, spending programs delivered through tax expenditures should be subject to the same level of scrutiny as direct spending programs. And also, IMHO, the best way to do that is to eliminate them and reenact those that pass muster as direct spending programs.
“Terps, honestly, did you watch the clip? Did you read the transcript? Did you spot the 16-story-tall straw man Price was trying to build? Would you honestly have respected Crowley more if she just sat back and allowed him to sling that utter BS?”
No, Dan. I would have respected her if she would have let Durbin carry on the debate.Isn’t he smart enough to pick apart the arguments? Why does she have to do Durbin’s arguing for him? She wants to debate instead of moderate.
Looks like Mark is going to have to do some serious America bashing with his next few articles to get back in your good graces. He went far off the reservation with his criticism of the liberal MSM.
Terps, did you watch the clip or not? You haven’t answered that question.
Dan
Do you know how hard it is to look at Candy Crowly for 5 staight minutes? We have choices with our internet viewing.You can sit there and stare at Candy Crowly all you want, but I’m opting for Giselle Bunchden and Kate Upton. You can look at Candy Crowly all you want. Enjoy!
But, for YOU and for one time only, I suffered through the interview and stand by my view that she is a huge liberal who likes arguing with conservatives rather than moderating a debate.
Oh, so Crowley’s ugly now. Glad we cleared that one up. Because, ya know, I’m sure terps’s female family members are all super models.
Still waiting for someone on the right to have something resembling a point, ever.
Wasting my keystrokes here but it is her show, it is not a debate and she is as free to ask questions of the guests as she wants to be. Are you someone anyone would want to “look at… for 5 staight minutes” terps? Why do you people always have to go there and denigrate people for things they cannot help, like their looks? Up until her big weight loss, she was a very heavy-set woman whose sharp mind and hard work carried her where she is today. You do not have to like her but lay off the crass, misogynistic insults!
terps, i feel your pain.
news, even bad and/or biased news, doesn’t have to presented in such a way that all our senses are assulted simultaneously.
Terp#18 wrote “I suffered through the interview and stand by my view that she is a huge liberal who likes arguing with conservatives rather than moderating a debate.”
Kristen#19 – Why do you claim that Terps is not making a point?
By the way, I have a personal stake in asking this question because Terp’s point is fundamentally the point of the essay. Terps just said it more succicntly than me! Thank you Terps.
And while I am not from the right, Terps is, so it seems your wait really is over.
Kristen
I’m proud to inform you that my wife and all of the girls in my family look alot more like Giselle Bunchden than Candy Crowly.
Last night I watched the movie The Eleventh Hour, and I have to say I was struck by how much Terps’ wife looks like the actress Jennifer Klekas. “Damn she looks like Mrs. Terps,” I probably said to my self five times. Mrs. Terps is older, of course, but they could be sisters.
On the other hand, we’re talking about the content of the interview, and the moderation. Candy Crowley was trying to get some specifics out of Rep. Price. She did nothing wrong.
Dan#24 Crowley may have done nothing wrong by Rush Limbaugh standards, but on the global broadcast media stage, it was amatuerish and vulgar.
You can be sure that Dick Durbin never told Cokie Roberts ” “Cokie, you have to listen closely…” and “Cokie, you have to be careful.” Nor did he ever say that to Tom Brokaw, Tim Russert, etc. And he certainly would not say that to his colleagues across the isle.
A global media journalist must project gravitas. No pun intended, but if she ever has had any gravitas, she has been stripped of it during the last 2 months.
Really, Markj? terp’s comment about Crowley’s appearance is the point of your essay? Impressive.
Sure terps…everyone’s a super model on the internet.
And terps…if your family is so full of hot females, maybe they should go to work for Fox News. That is the only qualification over there.
With all due respect, MarkJ, Dan and Sandi have it right from my point of view. Ms. Crowley attempted to get Rep. Price to provide some depth to the pre-election rhetoric he was regurgitating. Durbin was not rebuking Ms. Crowley, as Dan and Sandi have observed. The most startling part of this segment is that the Republicans (Boehner and Price) continue to use the “job creators” fabrication.
“With all due respect, MarkJ, Dan and Sandi have it right from my point of view. Ms. Crowley attempted to get Rep. Price to provide some depth to the pre-election rhetoric he was regurgitating. Durbin was not rebuking Ms. Crowley, as Dan and Sandi have observed. The most startling part of this segment is that the Republicans (Boehner and Price) continue to use the “job creators” fabrication.”
Nosaj . . . right. Durbin’s comments to Candy were NOT any kind of rebuke. Figuratively, he was like a someone watching a magic show, telling other members of the audience to never mind the smoke and mirrors, but pay attention to his sleeves and the mangy old rabbit he just pulled out of one.
“Projecting gravitas” sounds like the title of a class in a method acting school.
But that might be appropriate given the acting that passes itself off as TV journalism — mainstream or otherwise.
Why don’t they just take it all???
I have relatives in the country who think that 250k is “seriously rich”, I have relatives in cities that make more that this and believe they barely get by (and I am not even talking about small businesses).
This reminds me of Shrill, who owned 50 acres of “prime land” and complained that the “government took” 20% for the betterment of “the whole”. Shouldn’t a “true progressive” person understand that they are “obligated to give up this land (wealth, inheritance, earned income, gift, investment… etc…) to those “who don’t have enough” ???; and the “government” surely knows better than the owner/worker how to apportion it.
Or should only those who own 500 or 5,000 or 50,000 acres be obligated to “give”??
Similarly, should those who make 250k, 1M…etc… be obligated for the government to decide when they have “enough” so that they can give the rest to those they believe “who don’t have enough”?
The “safety net” should be a “net” and not a springboard for abuse.
Sharing the wealth should be “earned” not “taken” or “given (by government).
The “government” has no more right to take Shrill’s acres than they do to take more of her (or anyone else’ income) for un needed parkland (or abused programs)…
A thought just came to mind… if the “government” decided that they wanted to take 20% of your assets to make sure every citizen could have a free “abortion” or “firearm” would that make a difference???
“Projecting gravitas” sounds like the title of a class in a method acting school.
But that might be appropriate given the acting that passes itself off as TV journalism — mainstream or otherwise.”
Ed Murrow, David Brinkley, Walter Cronkite, RIP
mikeo – stop beating the dead horse of eminent domain that I posted way back when. The point was that the state took ten acres and at the time, the were not obligated to pay true value. Taking private property is not what governments should be allowed to do – this was added to 2000 acres that the county already owned…our ten acres was insignificant for them, but it was one fifth of our tract.
If you have a problem with my view point, I frankly could give a rat’s a$$.
“Why don’t they just take it all???
I have relatives in the country who think that 250k is “seriously rich”, I have relatives in cities that make more that this and believe they barely get by (and I am not even talking about small businesses).
. . .Similarly, should those who make 250k, 1M…etc… be obligated for the government to decide when they have “enough” so that they can give the rest to those they believe “who don’t have enough”?
The “safety net” should be a “net” and not a springboard for abuse.
Sharing the wealth should be “earned” not “taken” or “given (by government).”
Comment from mikeO
1. Nobody is suggesting that the government take ALL of anyone’s wealth. That is a silly straw man the wealthier classes are suggesting.
2. What you are objecting to is a couple with $350k AGI paying $4,000 more in taxes than they are paying now. A couple with $450k AGI would pay $8,000 in taxes more than they are paying now. And a couple with $650k AGI would be paying $16,000 more than they are paying now.
3. These are the people who benefited FAR MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE from the Bush tax cuts in 01 and 03. Lower earners benefited, too, to a much lesser extent. Earning by the wealthy have risen dramatically since then while middle-class wages have stagnated.
4. BUSH AND THE REPUBLICANS deliberately set these tax cuts to expire in 2010 (but were extended for 2 years in 2010). I fault Obama for not forcing this issue back then, btw.
5. Thus, if Congress doesn’t act, those tax cut are going to expire because of the GOP. They wrote the expiration into the bill.
6. There are two ways to proceed: a) allow all the cuts to expire, and cut spending or b) allow only the tax cuts for those earning above $250k to expire and cut spending. Wealthier families are DESPERATE to keep their tax cuts because they got almost all the benefit from them. If ALL of the cuts go, it’s not going to kill anyone in the lower and middle classes BUT, because there are a lot more of them, and because they spend almost all their disposable income, it’s going to reduce consumer spending and COULD push this country back into recession.
mikeO, you are complaining about a tax increase of $4 out of every $100 earned above $250k and likening it to government confiscation of all income above $250k. THAT is disingenuous, and you should be ashamed of yourself.
True gravitas is not afraid of the truth and it has no need to cherry-pick quotes out of context and give them a meaning not in evidence. Right wingers have no gravitas and Republicans have an extremely scant supply, as evidenced here.
Yeah right Dan! As if. Shame is not in their DNA apparently.
Speaking of TV journalism (mainstream or otherwise) check out:
http://tinyurl.com/c3466m8
**
Media meanness: When the nastiness goes too far
By Howard Kurtz, CNN
updated 1:31 PM EST, Mon November 26, 2012
SNIP
We’ve all enjoyed the guilty pleasure of seeing some author, actor or filmmaker eviscerated for the sheer sport of it. Good reviews are fine, but what really stirs the water-cooler talk is when the critic draws blood.
But has this trend gone too far in an age when anyone can instantaneously diss anyone else with a single mouse click? Does it amount to pandering to our collective mean gene?
SNIP
**
IMHO it is all about what sells.
For the media’s so called journalism that selling of advertisements / generating revenue is based on market-share of viewers. No one needs to build market-share across the right-moderate-left segment. Unlike in some elections, they can write-off 47% on one side, if they energize their side of the spectrum to keep coming back and watching. So the value of the media journalists is in the eye of the beholder.
“And terps…if your family is so full of hot females, maybe they should go to work for Fox News. That is the only qualification over there.”
Well, MSNBC clearly has cornered the market on ugly women. It must be a prerequisite for a job there. I guess attractive women have nowhere else to go but Fox.
If we take mikeo’s premise to its illogical conclusion – then those corporations making windfall profits – having more than a trillion dollars of cash on hand – should not be required to pay a proportionate share of taxes.
We know for a fact that some of the biggest and richest US corporations pay zero taxes and in some cases, actually get tax refunds. This is an example of the richest and most powerful 1%ers leeching from the system as much as they can at the expense of everyone else. Romney paid an effective tax rate of 14% on his investment income. The WalMart cashier will likely pay on wages, twice the rate of Romney’s…but mikeo thinks that is okay…
And btw, St Ronnie saw the inequality of the capital gains tax rate:
“In 1986, for example, the capital gains tax rate was 20 percent but was schedule to go up to 28 percent … as part of President Ronald Reagan’s tax overhaul. In 1986, capital gains collections soared to $52 billion – twice the amount as 1985.”
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/wealthy-dump-assets-advance-cliff-210032429.html
mikeo & others,
It seems to me that what we are talking about here is the definition of “enough.”
Let me give you some idea of what I’m talking about. My wife has made it clear that she plans to retire from her career next June. I will likely follow her 6 months to a year after that. We’ve been married 42 years and have been blessed in many ways including financially. She and I have been reviewing our personal situation and what the future holds for the two of us. Of course, we both understand that there are no guarantees. Nonetheless, the two of us have had discussions with our sons, members of our extended families, accountants, financial advisors and attorneys. To the best of our ability we have assessed what we need to live out our lives together. Fortunately it appears that we have more than we need. As a result our plan is to give what we don’t need away. We’ve ascertained those causes we plan to support, but the reality is that the rest is going to others.
It’s my recommendation that each of us do similar assessments of our personal situations. Some can do what my wife & I plan to do. It’s my belief that those who can, like my wife and me, should make plans to give away what they don’t need. Each of us has to define that in our own way. It’s not my intent to impose my decision on others. I just believe the world would be a much better place if we did so.
Shrill,
“I understand” your point that the state “took ten acres… and were not obligated to pay…” I understand that your “ten acres” may have been insignificant to the state but they were significant to you.
Sorta like taxes…
What I don’t understand is that the “state” wants to take my “ten acres”; maybe not in property/but in prosperity, and everything seems OK.
I have no problem with your point of view, in fact I agree.
Yikes… Dan completely misunderstands reality.
Comment by terps — November 26, 2012 @ 7:06 pm
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder terps.
Yikes… Dan completely misunderstands reality.
mikeO, if you’re so confident you’ve cornered the market on reality, why don’t you let the rest of us in on it. Your suggestive question, “Why don’t they just take it all?” is not real, btw. So tell us what is.
I just believe the world would be a much better place if we did so.
Comment by Ron May — November 26, 2012 @ 7:36 pm
Just to be clear here, the world would be a better place if folks who have been blessed, like my wife and me, should make plans to give away what they don’t need. Each of us has to define that in our own way. I’m just a Indiana farm guy. I’ve lived the American Dream. Financially, I’m not in the same ballpark as Mitt Romney & others like him. We, my wife & I, don’t have the ability to have the impact others might have. Nonetheless, we plan to do what we can.
That mikeo is, in my view, what we should be more worried about than how much more we might pay in taxes. Whatever taxes I pay are a repayment of what this country has allowed me to do.
It’s hilariously irrefutable that in post #25, writer Mark J, eager to share his expertise about the “global broadcast media stage” as if he’s ever been much part of it besides as just another opinionated viewer, declaimed with a perfectly serious face: “A global media journalist must project gravitas.”
You see, what’s hilarious about it is that he wrote that insight literally immediately after writing “(Durban) certainly would not say that to his colleagues across the isle” (sic).
So when Mark J says “I am not from the right” it must depend on which side of the “isle” you’re from, or perhaps the coast vs. the interior.
As for his vaunted regard for gravitas, maybe he’s watched enough of an obscure but important political program called “Gilligan’s Aisle” to imagine himself an authority about the global media stage.
No one made the expert do it. He chose his words. Just like when he walked Mrs. J down the isle, the tide was low. So perhaps he’s indeed not from the right, and he’s not patronizing or hilariously unaware of his own middlebrow limitations, either, as non-experts might think.
Ok, Dan,
although your numbers are way off skew.. “I will bite”… and use your numbers…
Surely an extra 16k would not bother a “rich” person like you who can pay for a mother who is in need and in need in a “home” and needing assistance… You may be a wonderful “rich” person, but most of your readers are not, like you…
However some of us believe that our family is our responsibility, not the governments, to insure they have a peaceful and we believe you do what you do because you understand the responsibility of family..
Correct me if I am wrong….
Re: shirllary 7:09
Yikes,
Maybe you didn’t have to entire reality..
Good comment Ron/#43 about “beauty being in the eye of the beholder”. And I might add that listening to Terps repeatedly insist he requires a boner to watch a newscaster is hysterical…
Roger’s on the phone to the control room:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/26/fox-news-interview-guest-network-wing-republican-party_n_2192506.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular
terps:
“Well, MSNBC clearly has cornered the market on ugly women. It must be a prerequisite for a job there. I guess attractive women have nowhere else to go but Fox.”
+1. RW women are always better looking for some reason.
“Surely an extra 16k would not bother a “rich” person like you who can pay for a mother who is in need and in need in a “home” and needing assistance… You may be a wonderful “rich” person, but most of your readers are not, like you…
However some of us believe that our family is our responsibility, not the governments, to insure they have a peaceful and we believe you do what you do because you understand the responsibility of family..
Correct me if I am wrong….”
mikeO, I can’t correct anything that makes no sense, like the comments above.
I suppose, JW and Terps, that you’re talking about Rachel Maddow (correct me if I’m wrong). She is in no way ugly — she’s attractive. BUT, she’s smart and articulate and assertive — and the real reason you despise her is that, above all, she is talented.
I understand — those qualities in a woman often leave certain men running away as fast as they can. Some guys feel threatened.
“RW women are always better looking for some reason.”
Who else pushes that ridiculous meme? Oh, yeah…
Fox News guest trashes Fox News live on the air
Warren,
ROFLMAO!
(And check your email)
Mark J maybe has not watched the former Governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee on Fox. He’s Baaaad.
Mark J, do you listen to Rush Limbaugh?
Dave Hicks#37 – That was an interesting and timely comment/link. Thanks for sharing.
Dan#32 “Ed Murrow, David Brinkley, Walter Cronkite, RIP”
Indeed, the way Crowely practices journalism just does not meet the standard that these gentlemen define.
CNN needs to send Crowely back to the minors.
Cold N Play #56 – Its arguable whether Linbaugh or Huckabee fall into the category of national or global media journalists. I have seen bits of both.
I suggest if you have some good clips that you share them with us at the beginning of next month, per Dan’s comment at the bottom of this column.
Poor Fox News, it appears that they made the assumption that their guest would trash Obama. He trashed them instead, oops.
“John Wilburn says:
terps:
“Well, MSNBC clearly has cornered the market on ugly women. It must be a prerequisite for a job there. I guess attractive women have nowhere else to go but Fox.”
+1. RW women are always better looking for some reason.
Posted on November 26th, 2012″
I see you boys have resorted to the middle school comments about women again.
My husband used to tell our sons, “Speak of and to women in the same way you would want your Grandmother, Mother, and sisters spoken of and to.”
Besides, why do I feel there are no Paul Newman, Matthew McConaughey, or Channing Tatum look-alikes posting here on a regular basis?
And terps and JW, this whole thing about who is better looking is just silly playground crap.
When I first say this thread and Candy Crowley’s name, I wondered how many milliseconds it would take for someone to comment on her appearance. I underestimated it by half. Stay classy men.
Re: shirllary 7:09 Yikes, Maybe you didn’t have to entire reality..
Comment by mike o — November 26, 2012 @ 9:52 pm
Wow what an incoherent post. Is English your first language? Did you learn sentence structure when you were a kid but since then forgotten the rules?
Dan:
“and the real reason you despise her [Rachel Maddow] is that, above all, she is talented.”
Not true at all. You assume way too much. She looks like a dude and gets on my nerves, nothing more.
Dan, that link was hilarious! Appeared that someone was in the interviewer’s ear telling him to bail judging by how quickly he dumped the interview.
“RW women are always better looking for some reason.”
Better looking than what.
“Dan#32 “Ed Murrow, David Brinkley, Walter Cronkite, RIP”
Indeed, the way Crowely practices journalism just does not meet the standard that these gentlemen define.
CNN needs to send Crowely back to the minors.”
Mark, the problem is far broader than Crowley. Have you ever seen Fox and Friends?
Dan#63 – Yes the problem (especially or even mostly in America) is far broader than Crowley. The world still does not get blasted with Fox and Friends, but yes I have seen them.
The fact is that the world does get saturated with CNN, BBC, France 24,RT, and Al Jazeera. They all have feature programs, and CNN heavily features State Of The Union with Candy Crowley (as of fairly recently). Crowley is now one of the main faces of American broadcast journalism to the world.
I tell you, compared to journalists on these other global outlets, Crowley is bush league. Her two performances that I cite give American broadcast journalism a bad name.
John Wilburn#65 – John, I have to agree with you on Ms. Rachel.
I would add that she is the opposite extreme of the Fox & Friends that Dan cites in such contempt. In fact she is so much like them, except that she roots for the opposite team. It reminds me of the Suzie & Sandi dynamic on this blog.
By the way, I think Suzie and Sandi are great contributors to this blog and they both stimulate a lot of discussions. The blog would not be the same without them.
Further to my comment #69, the world also gets saturated with CNBC. There focus is mostly, but not all, business.
They are damn good, and highly respected worldwide. Oh, and to add to the guy talk on this blog, they have a number of respected journalists that happen to be quite attractive women by most peoples tastes, and they get the big interviews with top business and political leaders.
Kristen:
67.”“RW women are always better looking for some reason.”
Better looking than what.”
LW women, on average… the ones in the media for sure.
MarkJ:
“It reminds me of the Suzie & Sandi dynamic on this blog.
By the way, I think Suzie and Sandi are great contributors to this blog and they both stimulate a lot of discussions. The blog would not be the same without them.”
I agree. You, I, and Dave Hicks are the only people here who seem to see that undeniable similarity in the two of them…. they are both extreme authoritarians. One is very left-wing and the other very right-wing. Both are emotional, but Sandi posts with genuine emotion where the Suz posts in a passive aggressive style.
The biggest difference is that Sandi posts as herself and owns her words, where Suzie posts as a ficticious character without accountability. So even though I agree with Suzie slightly more on big-picture stuff, I actually respect Sandi more. Suzie is spineless and harms her position because of it.
MarkJ and John Wilburn, your condescending comments in the last few posts, especially with regard to Rachel Maddow, Sandi, and Suzie, border on male chauvinism.
Nosaj:
“73.MarkJ and John Wilburn, your condescending comments in the last few posts, especially with regard to Rachel Maddow, Sandi, and Suzie, border on male chauvinism.”
Nosaj, I used to think you had more reason than to derive that from my comments, but apparently not. Maddow looks like a guy and gets on my nerves and Suzie and Sandi are both rabid authoritarians. None of those comments are chauvinistic.
Mr Jurkevich..
I would like to say that Ms Crowley
has probably been in the news business
longer than you have been alive.
I have no way of verifying that now
as there is no Google profile for you. (how can that possibly be)
Your horse ride seems fairly high in self appointment.
“…there is no Google profile for you.”
Interesting. Has Mark ever divulged how he makes his living?
Art,
Yes. Mark’s a sales exec in the telecommunications industry. There are more details on LinkedIn.
yea…a sales exec…
That should give him full qualifications
to be a critic of TV news reporters.
And Dan..that would be Mark is…not Mark’s.
joe,
We’re all critics. No qualifications are necessary!
I think then it would be good to start
doing man in the street interviews from
in front of Roanoke Wiener Stand to give it
the full carnival feel,,and give those
that arent given the high horse a chance to express their
views. Try to grab the ones without I-pads or
puffy opinions of themselves.
More Mark J columns, please!
This guest post stuff is similar to pro wrestling in a way: If the fans cheer you, you’re doing well. If the fans boo you, you’re doing well. If the fans do neither, you suck. Now that Mark J is making some bloggers unhappy, he is more interesting (and a good contrast to Dan too!).
It does not matter how many times you say it John Wilburn, I am not an authoritarian! I am passionate, opinionated and brutally honest, plus I love to argue. I can see that bothers you, but you are wrong about me being “like Suzie” and you are wrong to call me an authoritarian.
CNBC consists of a bunch of screeching market cheerleaders who discuss the DOW with the reverence usually reserved for religious figures. If you need to know how myopic CNBC is, check Jon Stewart’s evisceration of Jim Kramer, who was screaming that Bear Sterns was a buy days before it went belly up. I’d take Candy Crowley over the pudgy yelling suits on CNBC all day long.
“market cheerleaders”
That’s a bad thing? I guess it is in this brave new world. Marx and Lenin would be smiling at how marvelously this has all unfolded.
Is it just a matter of time before capitalists, businessmen and other “prosperity cheerleaders” are consigned to the reprogramming centers for ‘treatment”?
Sandi Saunders:
“I am not an authoritarian! I am passionate, opinionated and brutally honest, plus I love to argue. I can see that bothers you, but you are wrong about me being “like Suzie” and you are wrong to call me an authoritarian.”
I doesn’t bother me, but why don’t you propose some laws or regulations, just in case, to make sure it doesn’t.
.
Suzie:
“That’s a bad thing? I guess it is in this brave new world. Marx and Lenin would be smiling at how marvelously this has all unfolded…..blah….blah….blah”
SPAM FOLDER
“market cheerleaders”
That’s a bad thing? I guess it is in this brave new world. Marx and Lenin would be smiling at how marvelously this has all unfolded.
–Comment by Suzie
It can definitely be a bad thing if the passion underlying the practice obscures the realities of the market’s strengths and weaknesses.
Hell, just look at what happened in the last presidential election, when YOU and many other RWer political cheerleaders were supremely confident of a Romney victory. You (and his campaign, and Karl Rove and others) rode that unjustified confidence all the way to a crushing defeat. You guys screwed yourselves.
You (and his campaign, and Karl Rove and others) rode that unjustified confidence all the way to a crushing defeat. You guys screwed yourselves.
Our mistake was in assuming honest elections; not hundreds of precincts in swing states being stolen.
..blah….blah….blah”
Yep, John W. Those who don’t think things are quite right are ‘crazy’ now. Ergo the treatment centers. Thanks for doing your part.