Can you give a for-instance of another public figure outside the entertainment industry giving a performance like that?
To get a head start on slagging the potential 2008 opponents now. Why wait until 2008?
Ah, I see. Malkin’s behavior was so far outside of typical political behavior that it can be described as “apeshit.” Is that what you are saying? I dunno, man. When I hear that word I think about chairs being tossed, Senators being caned, and, of course, clothing getting ripped.
Political journalism has been show-business for quite a few years now, as has politics proper. Not surprising that Malkin would go all Rosie O’Donnell on someone, with similiar amounts of humor generated (little, with most of it coming at the expense of the attacker). I’m sure Edwards’s web person watched that with a smile on her face and if not they could always settle it with a sleepover/pillow fight.
I get the distinct impression that you’d be using entirely different terminology if we were talking about George Will.
One reason I like him is because, as someone who takes neither side, I can see how he rips all and sundry. Interviewing Cheney, for example, he showed all the predictions Cheney had made about the war that are now so obviously wrong. Greeted as liberators. War lasting a few weeks or months. The war costing nothing because of Iraqi oil. And so on. Russert played videos (sometimes more than one) of Cheney making all these statements.
It’s his standard formula, really. He’ll ask you what your stance is on something, or what you think of a poll or recent statement. If you answer in any way contradictory to anything you’ve ever said before, he will cue the director to play that video or show that portion of the transcript. He will then ask you to reconcile the contradiction. If you answer the question, he will move on. If you dodge, he will ask you again. If you dodge twice, he will note for the record that the question was unanswered, and will then move on.
Well, here’s just the most recent Russert entry on Media Matters, citing several failures by Russert to challenge false and dubious assertions by John McCain.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200701220009
Go to mediamatters.org and search for Tim Russert. They have plenty of examples of his work.
Exactly. Malkin wants to be taken seriously in that sort of environment. She’s not aspiring to be a guest on Rosie O’Donnell.
The criticism of Russert (or Matthews, or any of that crowd) would be that it’s easy to say things like this in 2007. If Russert challenged any Administration figures in this sort of manner in 2002, '03, and ‘04, then that would mean something. Doing it now is just being a freakin’ weathervane.
That comes across to me as offense mining. Russert doesn’t even work the way they’re describing. He’s not debating his guests. He has prearranged questions that he asks, and these are distributed over the time slot. Each question has a predecided pitfall for which videos and transcripts are cued as I described. If he were to question particular things within the responses other than what he asked about, he wouldn’t have time to ask the questions he has already written.
If you want the sort of give-and-take interview that MediaMatters wishes Russert did, then tune in to Chris Wallace. He starts with a few prepared questions, and then constantly interrupts the guest with argumentation or clarification requests. Don’t condemn Russert just because he doesn’t sabotage his own format to placate left and right wingnuts.
Yes. That’s what he does. He specializes in putting contradictions on the record. You can’t know that people have reversed their positions or been wrong until they’ve, you know, reversed their positions or been wrong.
Of course I’m being a bit facitious, but if George Will did something similar with David Broder’s columns I still wouldn’t call that “apeshit.” Unprofessional, silly, and unfunny maybe, but not “apeshit.”
That’s my point and that was Firefly’s point still the partisan binders snapped on. If you want to criticize someone, do it honestly. There’s plenty wrong with Bush without leaping to Hitler. There’s plenty wrong with Edwards without leaping to “he’s an unhinged nutball.” There’s plenty wrong with Malkin without leaping to “she’s gon’ apeshit.” Savvy?
Hijacking your own Pit thread by making the same mistake as the people you’re pitting. If there isn’t a Law *a la * Gaudere for that there should be. May I suggest Franklin’s Filthy Finger Folly after Ben Franklin’s advicement to “Not point at [his] spots with your dirty finger?”
I have to admit to having significantly less interest in seeing George Will in a ripped bodice haveing a hair-pulling catfight myself.
There was plenty of evidence that they were BSing us on the WMD claims in 2002. And Bart Gellman’s reporting in May 2003 showed that those who planned our invasion hadn’t really given a damn about the WMDs anyway.
So in 2002 and 2003, Russert could have done this.
And in February 2003, it was clear that we’d done minimal planning for the aftermath of the war. But since our leaders hadn’t made any claims about what we were going to do with Iraq once we took it from Saddam, I guess that was out of Russert’s comfort zone to ask?
It wasn’t like it became apparent since November that Iraq was a disaster. It’s only been since November that it was clear the GOP was paying a price for it, so it was safe for the weathervanes to blow against the Administration.
IOW, gimme a fuckin’ break. You’re not Starving Artist or duffer; you’ve actually got brain cells to rub together.
Then we have very different standards.
Context makes an enormous difference. If a college football coach threw a chair in the locker room after a game where his team had stunk, nobody would think twice about it, as long as the chair didn’t hit anyone. If a college math professor did the same in his classroom after handing back a test where his class had stunk…well, if he wasn’t already tenured, he wouldn’t be getting tenure. And people would be talking for years about the day the math prof went apeshit.
Like it or not, there are different standards for going apeshit for participants on Fox News Sunday than there are for wrestlers in the World Wrestling Federation. If you disagree with that, then it’s really simple: you’re wrong.
You know, if an interviewer can’t deviate from his script if an opportunity for a better question comes up, then he sucks as an interviewer and should find a different livelihood.
I mean, I can think of lots of good questions to ask our public figures. Coming up with followups in real time is something I’d suck at, and it’s the reason why I shouldn’t be doing the interviewing. Now I find that I’d be just as good as Russert.
Could you give an example where someone here has set that as the standard?
RTF: I thought you didn’t watch TV except for football. How do you know so much about the details of MtP interviews?
He’s not an interviewer on that show; he’s a moderator. (His title is Managing Editor and Moderator of Meet the Press.) Now, there is another show in which he conducts interviews, “The Tim Russert Show” on CNBC. Your argument is weak if you have to pretend he is someone he isn’t in order to criticize him.
You caught RTF in a lie??? :eek: Imagine that!
Lemmie know if you catch him in a truth, THAT would be newsworthy.
I didn’t say he was lying, and I don’t think he is.
I’m relying on Liberal’s descriptions.
Hey, you said he asks the questions: