Debates: Now Fact Free for your Enjoyment
Facts are SO pre-21st century.
I especially like how Digby explains what happens if anyone else brings up the facts. That is EXACTLY what happens. She does leave out the rare occasions where a journalist does block them from fact-free spewing. Then the focus is on the journalist for being a partisan hater.
"They are all liberals anyway, they hate us and are picking on us!"
Like I said the other day about name calling, if I wanted to just fact check a typical segment of "Hot Talk" radio it would be a full time job and I'd count more errors than stars in the Alpha Quadrant. Facts aren't important to them when it comes to one of their own. Yet they are the most important thing ever on the other side. "We've fact checked Michael Moore!" and if they don't find any problems, right to the name calling. "He's obese!" Wow. Way to move the discussion ball forward.
This doesn't even begin to address the way that they bring on sources that have no legitimacy, whose funding it clearly suspect or who just make stuff up.
"But it's just for entertainment!" some cry, except when they want respect in the "marketplace of ideas" or when they have political leaders on for interviews. Then suddenly they demand attention be paid!
To paraphraseFranck Eggelhoffer: "Welcome to the 21st century Mr. Banks."
I don't suppose any of the alleged journalists present could say anything. They are, after all, just there to get in their tedious, pre-fab gotcha questions from 1978, and tell jokes. Correcting the debater on his facts on current relevant issues during the actual debate (or even after it when they are all getting as much TV face time as possible and subjecting themselves to media of all kinds) is obviously not part of their job description. And anyway, if a rival does manage to bring it up, it's presented as "politics" and "he said/she said" unless a snotty operative can successfully turn it into some kind of "gaffe" or the right wing drags out the fainting couch and stages a ritual humiliation kabuki. Fact-checking? How droll.From the insightful, brilliant Digby
I especially like how Digby explains what happens if anyone else brings up the facts. That is EXACTLY what happens. She does leave out the rare occasions where a journalist does block them from fact-free spewing. Then the focus is on the journalist for being a partisan hater.
"They are all liberals anyway, they hate us and are picking on us!"
Like I said the other day about name calling, if I wanted to just fact check a typical segment of "Hot Talk" radio it would be a full time job and I'd count more errors than stars in the Alpha Quadrant. Facts aren't important to them when it comes to one of their own. Yet they are the most important thing ever on the other side. "We've fact checked Michael Moore!" and if they don't find any problems, right to the name calling. "He's obese!" Wow. Way to move the discussion ball forward.
This doesn't even begin to address the way that they bring on sources that have no legitimacy, whose funding it clearly suspect or who just make stuff up.
"But it's just for entertainment!" some cry, except when they want respect in the "marketplace of ideas" or when they have political leaders on for interviews. Then suddenly they demand attention be paid!
To paraphrase
2 Comments:
If it's "just for entertainment", then shouldn't they have those disclaimers like the commercials for Miss Cleo and all the other Psychic Friends Hotlines?
Rush can say what he wants because he is an entertainer.
Sally Field is not entitled to her own opinion because she is an entertainer.
WHAT????????/
Post a Comment
<< Home