I’ve got a link for you, but you’re going to have to work for it. It’s a full transcript from that night and Zell comes in about 1/4 of the way through. You can read the full thing here.
But as **Starving Artist ** said, it loses something when just reading the words. To get the full entertainment, you’d have to see the video. It was beautiful.
Are you aware of the tremendous propensity you have for jumping to conclusions? I saw the Zell Miller interview in its entirety on Hardball. I watch Fox very little.
Fairness has nothing to do with it. I’m pitting Matthews for being a loudmouthed verbal bully, and I’m basking in the fact that he not only got absolutely nowhere trying his shit with Schwarzenegger, but was made to look the fool whenever he tried.
That’s right. I do not deny – and as a matter of fact will state quite directly – that it seems that way to you. Just as I said before.
Won’t allow them to avoid giving direct answers??? Hell, he wouldn’t let Miller get a word in edgewise! He’d ask a question in a loud, obnoxious and belittling tone, and then start talking loudly and spouting his own take on the question as soon as Miller tried to speak.
Well, unbeknownst to you, I am a viewer who watched the whole interview as it happened on MSNBC. And I’ll stake my take on it against yours any day. You think you’re talking to a Fox News talking point robot but you’re sorely mistaken. I know what I’m talking about from first-hand experience. And frankly, I’m beginning to wonder just what it was you saw. Perhaps an after-the-fact paring down by MSNBC that you mistakenly believed was the original?
Well, here’s what you said that triggered my response:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself
“Oh pul-leese, Miller got no more than he deserved.”
What Miller got was steamrollered, made fun of, hollered at, and treated with more disrespect than I’ve ever seen any talk show host allow themselves to wallow in. You, out of your extreme left-wing, right-hating bias, said he got no more than he deserved. Thus it certainly appears to me you think that if a guest’s prior behavior (i.e., making a speech you don’t like) is thought to be sufficiently egregious by the host, the host then has carte blanche to behave in such a reprehensible way. If this isn’t what you meant to suggest, I’d like to know what is.
BTW, I take back my implicit endorsement of Matthews. I was thinking of someone else. I had forgotten about the Miller interview.
That’s how Arnold really shines. He smiles, turns the question back on the interviewer and gives an answer completely different than the interviewer is trying to elicit – in effect saying the opposite of what the interviewer is going for – and then sits back and basks in applause while the interviewer tries to get back on track.
There were several times when Matthews tried to back him into a corner and wouldn’t let go of a point designed to make Arnold look bad. And each time, Arnold came through with flying colors.
I didn’t mean to imply that Arnold figuratively body-slammed Matthews to the ground. Rather, he sat there, cool, calm, collected, with facts and figures mentally at hand, and spoke with conviction rather than spin. He didn’t back down from saying out loud what Matthews thought he would try to spin his way out of, and left Matthews nonplussed as a consequence.
For example, at one point Matthews thought he’d make Arnold look bad by ‘forcing’ him to admit he didn’t like the teacher’s union, and, by implication, that he therefore didn’t like teachers themselves. Instead, Arnold said right out loud: “That’s right. I’m against the teacher’s union…but not the teachers. It is the union that is the problem.” Then he went on to explain why he felt that way and recieved applause as a result. In other words, Matthews got what he was going for but received a totally different result from it than he expected. And Arnold did that to him over and over again.
Also remember that the transcript doesn’t reflect the stridency and aggressiveness that Matthews occasionally employed in trying to get Arnold to say or admit something that Matthews was driving at.
But still, Arnold shines at taking on his critics in a smiling and personable way, and by the strength of his own convictions and inner character…and by having marshalled his arguments in a reasoned and rational way…he turns his critics on their ears and comes out smelling like a rose. He outsmarts them every time.
Well, don’t blame me, I’m only the messenger. The media created the bias, I didn’t. Go after them if you’re unhappy hearing about it.
And if you aren’t a left-winger I’m at a total loss to explain how you could apparently believe that Matthews’ behavior toward Miller following Miller’s speech to the Republican Convention was free of bias and anger over Miller’s condemnation of the Democrat party. It was obvious that Matthews was incensed by Miller’s speech and he was determined to try to obviate the damage Miller might have done by making him look like a fool. Fortunately, he succeeded only in portraying himself that way.
Not so much as you think. I would suggest you read Bernard Goldberg’s book, Bias. It explains tons of question I’ve always had about how such corporate entities as CBS, CNN, et al. could allow such bias in their coverage when it has to be hitting them in the pocketbook.
Bias explains very clearly how this happens: these corporate entities view themselves and their viewpoints as normal, rational and reasonable, and therefore they perceive they are doing nothing wrong. There is only them, and extreme right-wing nutjobs. Where they’ve gone astray all these years is in failing to recognize that a huge percentage of the country falls into the category they define as right-wing nutjobs. Thus, decades of resentment have arisen over media bias that the media itself is unable to see.
This is changing somewhat now with the success of Limbaugh, Hannity & Colmes, Fox News and Bill O’Reilly. CNN, for one, shows much less bias these days than they have in the past. And the other networks seem to be becoming at least somewhat aware of their perception as being biased and are taking steps to minimize it.
But it is real and it has been there a long time. Again, if you truly are not a left-winger and you have an open mind, I urge you to read Goldberg’s book; it answers tons and tons of heretofore unanswered questions regarding CBS and the news media in general, and perhaps can give you a new perspective on the issue so that you will be better able to deal with complaints of media bias than you are now.
In my fit of pique that lasted for years before realizing he wasn’t Satan after all, this is what pissed me off about Clinton. Ole Bill was pretty decent as a President (fuck, did I just say that?) if you ignore the moral aspects, and legal, but I digress.
Charm is a major factor in today’s politics in the US. If you look good on tv and can handle questions on the fly, you’re golden. Why do you think Arnold is the sole reason for calls to change the Constitution to allow furriners to run for Pres?
It’s because of people like him.
disclaimer I like him. And I agree with his plans for my (hopefully) future home state or neighbor state disclaimer
Bill Clinton paved the way. Even someone as conservative as I am would like to spend some time with him. He’s a personable guy and seems easy to mesh with. And you know damn well he’d get some digits.
It’s just more proof that print media is dead and the populace is inconvenienced by having to vote.
Arnold is a shoe-in if he ever runs. But the law won’t change. Those ass-bags are too busy inspecting athletes. :rolleyes:
Yep, I have to agree with almost all of what you said. The difference is I wouldn’t be surprised to see Arnold become president one day. I saw Maria Shriver on Oprah’s show once and Oprah mentioned that she thought Arnold was the most remarkable person in the entire country. He came here as a pumped up bodybuilder hardly speaking the language, became Mr. Universe, became a millionaire real estate investor (he was already a millionaire when Pumping Iron came out), became the world’s number one movie star just like he said he would in spite of his accent, weightlifting background and awkward name, and is now the governor of a state that would be the world eighth-larest economical power if it were a separate country, and he made it on his first run for office.
The guy has tremendous smarts, an incredible amount of charm, and a cheerful, positive, can-do mentality that somehow seems to enable him to transcend all obstacles and acheive the impossible.
Again, I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see the people of this country come together to pass a constitutional amendment allowing him to run for president, and if he wins I would wager he would go down in history as a phenomenally savvy, charismatic, pragmatic president who was able to unite the country and make it proud of itself again in much the same way Reagan did.
He just has a way of getting things done and rallying people to his side, and I’ve somehow come to believe over the years that, for whatever reason, he truly can accomplish anything he decides he wants to.
SA, where do I have to relocate to in order to vote for you on the SA/Rice ticket in the summer of 2007? 
Sheesh, get a room you two. :eek:
I didn’t see it, since I don’t watch TV, but from my POV, if Ahnold and Tweety go at it, it’s win-win. Just so long as there’s blood on the tracks, I’m happy either way.
Ain’t it wonderful, how great he can be in situations like that?
Now, about that CA budget deficit - how’s he doing with that?
I know - y’all can always pass another bond referendum to finance current imbalances, so you can see Ahnold shine some more in interviews. If y’all want Mynheer Peeperkorn running your state, that’s up to you. We’ve already got one running the country, so we don’t need to change the Constitution or anything.
Ok, I’ve read through the transcript. It looks like what happened, from the transcript, was that Matthews was trying to make a point about demonizing rhetoric, using an example, and that Miller misunderstood Matthews to be putting words into Miller’s mouth and got belligerent. I do recall seeing clips of parts of the interview, and it was very noisy, which couldn’t have helped, nor would Matthew’s bombastic speaking style.
Thanks for the link, Duffer.
Thank you! This is a comment that a lot of people should really make note of.
You see, you are just making all this up because you hate the left. I am actually quite moderate; I am in favor of a balanced budget, and I favor drilling in ANWR, among other things. Hardly 'extreme left ’ positions, but since you have already concluded I am the enemy, that will make little differrence in your little tirade agains the evil leftists that make up the Democratic Party.
I’m sure it appears that way, to you.
No, I really don’t think you do. You have made up your mind.
I’ve only been following the US media over past few years and that might explain why I haven’t see systemic bias. When it comes to political news reporting, CNN and MSNBC are trying hard not to offend any potential viewer while Fox is waving the flag. The common theme: we will report and discuss whatever is least offensive. Throw in the fact that actual news reporters are dwindling and you are left with every channel regurgitating wire stories. Then, they all have a slew of so-called “analysis” shows where the spinmeisters spit and chew each other out over the wire news story.
The only bias I have seen is in social issues - the mainstream media doesn’t take a favorable view of some conservative issues and that’s pretty much it.
Do you want to know how shallow the US mainstream media is? Read and follow news coverage from an external perspective, from media orgs outside the US such as Canada, UK, Europe, Asia… you will see how the US media has woven this coccoon around its audience soothing them to sleep awoken only by car chases, the scary face of MJ and miscellaneous disasters.
There are many people in the US forming their opinions based on nothing but a one-or-two word description (ie, Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative, right-wing, christian, muslim, etc).
These people are called idiots.
Are you kidding? Exposing a Bush apologist to unrestrained criticism of the United States these days is guaranteed to make their heads explode inside of 14.3 seconds!
Not that that’d be a bad thing, mind you. But I don’t want to be stuck cleaning up the mess.
Point taken. And FWIW I am trying to soften the rhetoric. But after 31 years it may take awhile. It’s the best I can do.
The arena of social issues is where the resentment of media bias is taking place. There’s a very real cultural war going on in the U.S., and until recently only one side had a voice.
I see your point, and the U.S. does indeed come in for a lot of criticism for not being more aware of goings-on in the rest of the world. But I think a lot of it has to do with our country’s history and location.
In other places around the world, there are many countries located close together and it behooves everyone to know what’s going on with everybody else. Such has not been the case here.We’re separated from the rest of the world by two vast oceans and by two large and relatively friendly countries. Until relatively recently, news from around the world wasn’t that easy to get. Radio is only around seventy-five years old and television about fifty. And prior to the fifties and the advent of large, safe aircraft, few American travelled abroad.
This means that by and large, few Americans had direct experience with the outside world, and what news there was of it was minimal and slow in coming. So for most of our country’s history, the American people just haven’t been accustomed to receiving much in the way of news from around the world.
Also, until very recently, news itself wasn’t much in evidence. Prior to the computer age and the advent of cable television and satellite transmission capabilities, news generally was confined to around thirty minutes a night of NBC, CBS or ABC news, and thirty minutes a night of local news.
So people in America, through no real fault of their own, have simply never become accustomed to keeping track of what was going on in parts of the world that were thousands and thousands of miles away and separated from us by huge oceans.
That is beginning to change now. Prior to joining this board, I, for one, wasn’t even aware that access to around-the-world news organizations was available. Now, thanks to my discovery of the Drudge Report and its links to outside news organizations, I have become aware that these broader news outlets exist.
But to be honest, I’m only now coming to them and my interest in them is scant – at least at this point – for several reasons. For one, I’m totally ignorant of what is going on in the countries I’m reading about. I don’t know which politicians or leaders stand for what; I don’t know what meaning terms like ‘liberal,’ ‘conservative,’ ‘socialist,’ etc., have in context to the particular country I’m reading about; and I’m ignorant of the nature of the relationships between the countries themselves.
So it’s easy for me to decide that it’s just too complex to wade through right now, so I’ll just go play on the Straight Dope, instead. 
But thanks to electronics, the world is shrinking and I think that eventually all (or at least, most) of us around the world will be learning much more about the other.
In closing, though, let me point out that this type of ignorance does not occur just here in the United States. Few people who come here from other countries have any idea what it’s really like here. The country looks different from what they expected; the people act differently than they expected; and the overall experience of being here is different than what they expected.
Why? Because they get their mental image of life in America and America itself from television and movies, and television and movies bear very little resemblance to day-to-day life in America.
So really, who among us really knows much at all about the other? Ignorance is pandemic. The outside world’s perception of us is totally skewed away from reality, and our own perception of the outside world is largely not even there…so there ya go.
But it’s getting better, and I think that due to the advent of the computer and the Internet, we will all eventually grow closer together and to understand each other better.
You may be the laziest man alive. [/Big Lebowski]
…through our mutual love of pornography.