Skip to main content

View Diary: Frank Rich on Fox's Shepard Smith (263 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I don't think she threw them under the bus, (4+ / 0-)

    I think sometimes Keith goes beyond acceptable journalism, and is more interested in doing his commentary or his new WTF moments. Some things need to be said, but some are just for Keith's personal agenda. Whether shit comes from the right or the left, it is better to tamp down the rhetoric and inject reasonableness. I think that is the responsibilty of news personalities.

    •  I disagree re KO (7+ / 0-)

      While he has his positives and his negatives, as well as a large ego he frequently indulges, he mostly does so with a sense of humor, irony, and intelligence.

      More importantly, as an opinion journalist, he provides an invaluable service for liberals that we mostly don't get on TV.  He provides point by point refutations of the latest conservative talking points du jour.

      And, two weeks ago, I think he did a really smart thing when he committed to cease all mention of O'Reilly and Fox News in an effort to not provide them any additional legitimacy.  As a result, I think his show is actually better and more watcheable. Rush Limbaugh probably wishes that Ko would afford him the same inattention, but, alas, Ko can't afford to ignore the anointed leader of the GOP!

      •  still I think some of his commentary, not all (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mjd in florida

        is just K.O. being able to vent for his own benefit. I actually don't approve of what Fox does nor do I approve of what K.O. sometimes does. I guess you could call it my fairness doctrine. I don't think inflaming the public and using your access to the airwaves is ever helpful. The difference between us and them, is they are stupid, and think what they hear is scripture, we on the other hand can take it for what it is and accesse it for ourselves. Neither side needs it. Their side uses the mindset, if they say it on t.v. it is true. Far too many uneducated fans of Fox beleive what they say to be true, and none will ever watch the other side of the debate on K.O. so it is wasted on those with like thinking. I just don't think any of it is necessary, nor helpful in the social climate of today.

      •  I'm wondering if he is threatened by Rachel. (0+ / 0-)

        It seems that she has not diverged from topics lately ... gay marriage, sotomayor, torture.  I wonder if they divide the turf and Keith gets first dibs.

    •  I agree (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sharman

      I thought his attack on Palin because of the Letterman flap was way over the top. Palin was obviously milking the situation, but the "joke" was in very poor taste.

      Looking back through the Bush years for his Positive Accomplishments is, for me, like picking through my toddler's diaper for the undigested corn. - Thers

      by MadRuth on Sun Jun 14, 2009 at 11:14:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yep (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MadRuth

        it was poor taste, absolutely.

        One could easily have agreed that Letterman needs to apologize, while simultaneously jumping all over Palin's blatant lie about how "children were off limits" only for Obama's kids, oh the hypocrisy of the left, etc.  Conveniently ignoring the fact that it was Obama who laid that rule down, and specifically at the first time that Bristol made the gossip sheets.

        •  She started out on a high note (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sharman, mjd in florida, Matt Z, jayden

          but with all things Palin she brought it to a level that kind of cancelled out her good intentions. She does this with everything, the woman is so full of herself, and she  thinks people actually care what she has to offer to the discourse. All she had to say, was, President Obama said during the campaign Kids are off limits, and that is the way it should stay, but she couldn't leave it at that. She had to of course call him on it for being the "approved candidate' and go on from there. She is a crazy woman.

      •  A lot of Letterman's jokes are similarly in poor (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mjd in florida

        taste.  It's just if you have the power to make a big deal about it.  I mean, Bristol was a teen mother and the joke was NOT about the other girl ... Willow?  Sapling?  Can't remember her name.

      •  I could be wrong, but I think in some (0+ / 0-)

        weird way he defended her position at first, said it was foolish to pick a fight with a comedian, especially after what Letterman did to McCain, but he did agree the joke was in poor taste. I don't think Keith went over the top until Sarah went over the top, or Todd went over the top.

    •  We need to stop referring to what Keith does as (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elizsan, Mnemosyne

      "journalism."  He is a commentator and we need to be careful to keep that in mind.  While he does do better digging and fact-checking than most actual tv journalists, he is still presenting more opinion than fact when he disperses the results.

      Remove nuance-blocking glasses before entering life.

      by LeanneB on Sun Jun 14, 2009 at 11:34:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That is the same excuse we hear from the right (0+ / 0-)

        when we complain about Hannity, O'reilly or Beck, they can say what they say and get away with it because they are not journalists. If they are not journalists, then perhaps they should not be on "The Fox News Network", or MSNBC, both of which are sold as cable news stations. People tune in to hear the news 24/7, so if they are not going to provide us with journalists and rather call them commentators, perhaps they should not be on a cable news network. Just my opinion, I don't want people's opinions being sold as news, I want my news staight up and my opinions straight up. By doing this gives people an excuse to interject their opinions into the news, they all start out by citing the news of the day, and then go into their opinions. I just think it is wrong.

        •  You've misdiagnosed the problem. (0+ / 0-)

          First, if you have problems with the tone an tennor of modern television news, then demand that Fox change their content first. It is politically foolish to suggest a 'rhetorical unilateral disarmament' from the weaker side.

          Second, if you want nothing but news, delivered with a neutral and dispassionate tone, then don't watch television news. Television is right-brained. It doesn't do that kind of thing very well.

          That style of delivery you criticize is used because it works with the typical TV audience. Fox News understands this and this is why they have been so successful. Dryness is a sure way to alienate the audience. Popular television with a dry delivery is an oxymoron reserved for non-profit ghettos like CSPAN.

          Once again, tone and delivery are geared to the audience. The real issue is lying, misinformation and disinformation and neither tone, delivery nor general sensibility.

          They tortured people
          To get false confessions
          To fraudulently justify
          Invasion of Iraq!
          -Seneca Doane

          by James Kresnik on Sun Jun 14, 2009 at 01:13:32 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It is just my personal opinion, but I want my (0+ / 0-)

            news straight up, without commentary or spin, and I want to be the one to decide.

            •  Watch C-SPAN and Reuters. (0+ / 0-)

              Our ideal news style would be a TV ratings disaster.

              They tortured people
              To get false confessions
              To fraudulently justify
              Invasion of Iraq!
              -Seneca Doane

              by James Kresnik on Sun Jun 14, 2009 at 06:29:46 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  And yet again, the profit motive has screwed up (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                James Kresnik, LeanneB

                another staple of American life. High ratings equal more money, so do anything to get those high ratings, at what cost. Some things should be not for profit, health care, energy, and T.V. news. When you think about it, those three things that should be not for profit, make the most profits than any other thing. Do you think that is right?

                •  Sure, but TV is right-brain media. (0+ / 0-)

                  It doesn't handle objective correspondence well at all. The best we can hope for is that the emotional imagery and polemic is based on relevant factual information and not pure spin.

                  They tortured people
                  To get false confessions
                  To fraudulently justify
                  Invasion of Iraq!
                  -Seneca Doane

                  by James Kresnik on Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 12:21:45 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  Not sure where you heard an "excuse" in my (0+ / 0-)

          comment.  All I was saying is we shouldn't confuse Keith with a journalist, because he is simply not one.  That doesn't make Hannity or O'Reilly or Beck journalists, either.  It simply shows that we have stopped looking for news from journalists, or more accurately, have accepted that there IS no journalism anymore, and are allowing the media to serve up "news" in the form of commentary on a regular basis.

          Remove nuance-blocking glasses before entering life.

          by LeanneB on Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 09:54:34 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site