Skip to main content

View Diary: We finally know why John McCain is invading our TV every Sunday (242 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I think you are missing my point. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I take it as a given that people at this site think everything McCain says is wrong.  

    But that's not the viewpoint of these shows.  The viewpoint of these shows is to get a representative of each sides's views on controversial topic, or to present the administration's view and then a response from the opposition, and to let the viewer make up his/her mind about which side has any credibility.  

    And what do you mean about a "free pass"?  Do you mean the host does not set out to affirmatively demonstrate that he's wrong?  That's not what these shows are supposed to do.  They ask Democrats questions, they ask Republicans questions, they let them answer and then they let the viewer decide which to believe.  (they don't always do it well, but that's the goal.)  Partisan commentary shows, where the host does everything from a defined political viewpoint, clearly do that kind of thing you are talking about.

    •  Okay, fair enough (16+ / 0-)

      so you agree with Chuck Todd, who in a sense said it's not the media's job to correct falsehoods. I disagree with both of you, I think the media has a responsibility to point out mis-truths, misrepresentations, misspeaks or lies (whatever one calls them)
      As I commented below, if presented with bullshit how can one make an intelligent decision? Should we assume because the host let it go then it must be true?

      •  But only kinda sorta (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        motamanx, MPociask, Nannyberry

        It's not really the media's job to correct falsehoods, but correcting falsehoods should be a side effect of the media doing its jobs.

        Most of politics and political issues is strongly subject to the eye of the beholder.  Media people are biased. They are biased because they are, well, people.  Overtly straying from a sincere effort to be informative destroys turns the media into little more than sock puppets.

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 08:28:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  facts are not political issues (5+ / 0-)

          and many times politicians say things that are objectively false and should be corrected.  Otherwise supposed journalists are just dictaphones.  

          you can shit on my face but that doesn't mean I have to lick my lips

          by red rabbit on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 09:59:04 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Strictly speaking, no, but sometimes one man's (0+ / 0-)

            fact is another's lie.

            LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

            by dinotrac on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 10:21:21 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Or the same man's lie the next day (5+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              dinotrac, vernonbc, tweener8292, fhcec, carrps

              Journalists should ask at least one follow up along the lines of "How does that square with what you said yesterday?" and go to the video.  Internet video should mean the end of McCain's kind of lying.

              •  No kidding. (0+ / 0-)


                We have so many slippery characters.

                Ummmm....well...yeah, but...

                That was then, this is now, goodbye.

                LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                by dinotrac on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 02:36:13 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Totally agree... (0+ / 0-)

                A journalist who just allows a lie or twisted fact go unchallenged doesn't even meet the minimum requirement of being a reporter. The reason for having these people interviewing is to do exactly what dcotler said - have them defend their statement. Then the viewer can decide how to deal with it. Why do we need these reporters at all if not to put some facts in the discussion? They could just stand up the person they were supposed to interview and let them blather on. CNN can save a bundle by getting rid of incompetent, ineffectual, overpaid head-nodders like Candy Crowley.

        •  one of the reasons Brit radio/TV (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          snwflk, SilentBrook, SpotTheCat

          is so much better than ours is that they push the interviewees, question them assertively, and get them to do more than state half truths and falsehoods over and over again. Hosts work to get guests to elucidate their thinking, consider things outside the press releases, and generally make it much more difficult for leaders to run their mantras over and over again unchallenged. Our politics and news would be a LOT more informative and useful if the interviewers were more assertive in this way.

          "There's nothing serious about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires." - President Obama

          by fhcec on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 09:47:50 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Um, aren't you presented with (0+ / 0-)

        bullshit?  And aren't you capable of determining what you believe and what you don't believe?  Aren't you capable of searching out information on stuff that's important to you, listening to what people say, and making a decision which views you buy and which you don't?  

        Why would you think your fellow citizens are less capable of doing that than you are?  More importantly, what justifies treating your fellow citizens as less capable of doing that than you are?  

        •  Fine. Then every Sunday talk show- (6+ / 0-)

          really every political show- should include a disclaimer that their viewers are expected or required to verify the truth or falsehood of all statements, and that the "journalist" interviewers have no interest in veracity or lack thereof.

          Shorthand disclaimer: this might be bullshit, but that's irrelevant to us, so do your own research. And thanks for watching!

        •  um, no (5+ / 0-)

          neither me, nor you, nor most other viewers do background research on every issue or topic before watching television interviews--that's what competent journalists are supposed to do.  
          Pathetic that you have to resort to defending shitty journalism in a ridiculous effort to defend McCain.  Is this all you have to do when you're not defending shitty legal reasoning?  

          you can shit on my face but that doesn't mean I have to lick my lips

          by red rabbit on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 10:04:10 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  i expect journalists (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          carrps, snwflk, SilentBrook, Yonit

          to be better informed than most of us - it's their job to be informed and to search out what is really happening from a variety of perspectives - not to echo one side's talking points or the other's. If they are not better informed, what's the point of spending time listening to them - just to be able to boo and hiss again? That's a huge waste of time, IMHO. News is my avocation, not my vocation - and when my couple or three hours of reading makes me more informed than journalists, watching them doesn't add anything except grief. Why bother, then?

          "There's nothing serious about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires." - President Obama

          by fhcec on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 09:52:18 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  This is where you lose me. (0+ / 0-)

          I agree that as one of the Republican party's leaders, McCain is an obvious guest on the Sunday Public Affairs programming. He not only has a right to be seriously considered a part of the national discussion, but the press would be remiss if they were to ignore or disinvite him. That his pronouncements so rarely deserve such consideration is on McCain, not the networks.

          However, the role of the journalist is supposed to be one that brings the discussion around to the facts, and to elucidate when a speaker has moved into the realm of opinion. Otherwise, journalism sinks into the quagmire of stenography and false equivalences, which on these Sunday Public Affairs shows has become the current default setting.

          Assuming that the burden of fact-checking is exclusively the responsibility of the citizenry removes the ethical underpinnings of a free press to do its job. Furthermore, by fully undertaking its journalistic responsibilities, the press compels politicians of all stripes to not play fast and loose with reality, allowing the thus informed citizenry to make informed decisions based on their personal values.

          There is also an element of elitism that hides in your assertions, perhaps that you've not examined. Not every citizen has access to the internet and its voluminous fact-checking capacities. But TV is pretty much ubiquitous, and most of those who do not have TVs do so by an informed choice that it is such a Minowian Wasteland that they'd rather not have it in their lives at all.

          If TV's public affairs programming short-serves its audience, only some of that audience actually has access to better journalistic service. That is not merely a matter of personal capability to discern bullshit that you hector us as ignoring, or worse, elitistly presuming wantng in our fellow citizens, but a feature of economic class difference that can misinform people based solely on their income level.

          We build on foundations we did not lay. We warm ourselves by fires we did not light. We sit in the shade of trees we did not plant... We are ever bound in community.-Peter Raible

          by SilentBrook on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 05:16:19 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  we are old enough to remember when news shows (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        laurak, ER Doc, NoBlueSkies, vernonbc, fhcec

        were supposed to be about getting at the truth, not just "and now let's give equal time to someone who believes the earth is flat"

        actually, it's worse than that.

        they give MORE time to the people who believe the earth is flat, because they complain all the time that people holding their view are shortchanged by the liberal media!

        Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D.
        Drop by The Grieving Room on Monday nights to talk about grief.

        by TrueBlueMajority on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 10:08:16 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  So who presented the Democratic viewpoint (6+ / 0-)

      this past Sunday on that show? W's former Ambassador to Iraq? Candy Crowley?

      State of the Union: Sen. John McCain (R-AZ);  Former National Security Adviser Gen. Jim Jones; Former Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad; Roundtable: Former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (R), Former Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland (D), Democratic Strategist Stephanie Cutter and Republican Strategist Kevin Madden.

      "On their backs were vermiculate patterns that were maps of the world in its becoming. Maps...of a thing which could not be put back. Not be made right again."

      by middleagedhousewife on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 08:21:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Journalists should ignore lies? (9+ / 0-)

      Nixon would have loved your amoral attitude toward the truth.

    •  Seriously??? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      millwood, vernonbc

      Despite statistics proving otherwise (that the MSM Sunday shows lean decidedly republican, decidedly white and male), you seem to be saying that people here don't want fair and balanced, therefore implying that the Sunday shows are fair and balanced (which they are not).

      Tell me this coffeetalk, why are you here?  You seem to come at posters here from the right wing pov on most issues.  I really don't get why you bother.  This is a democratic site where the democratic center center should be way to the left of even centrist dems.  Not saying you can't be here...just don't understand why since since on most issues you take the business/republican/antilabor pov.

      “We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both.” Louis D. Brandeis

      by Jjc2006 on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 11:20:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site