Skip to main content

One of the most interesting questions about a public performance concerns how the context affects the message.  We need to understand this because we are influenced by such factors and because we want to use the media to influence others.

I'm absolutely not an expect in this area, but I have quite a bit of experience speaking as a professional woman and I've learned to look for some things.  

I did think that MSOC has a wonderful physical presence and that she stayed completely on message, while also managing to be clever and even humorous.  She did her part really well.

But things happen.  I have no idea what to do about these things.  I've enountered the same set up as MSOC encountered (as I see it) fairly often.  It's tough; I have a few ad hoc ways of dealing with it, but I doubt they are very effective.  But at least we need to think about this kind of thing, IMHO.

Mind you, I could be wrong about this, but here are three factors which I thought were present and which bothered me:

1.  Gibson introduced Beckel as an old friend.  Though he knows MaryScott, nothing was said about their acquaintance.  (My memory could be faulty, but I'm pretty sure this was true.)  Gibson and Beckel were very obviously pals.

2.  Throughout the session he referred to his old friend as Beckel, while MSOC was "MaryScott."  In context where you're indicating who is meeting professional standards, stuff like that is important.  (I floated a gender analysis of this difference earlier which I'm now not sure about.  Something was going on, but I'm not sure what.)

3.  Beckel has 352 words and MSOC 120.  (I'm counting them from the transcript that appear in the diary which my above comment was linked to.)

What was the effect of this?  Well, the effect probably varied from one person to the next, but I was concerned that a very particular context was placed for MSOC's comment that Beckel, who doesn't want impeach to start right away if we all win in the fall, is a strategist, while she calls for impeachment on principle.  That is, MSOC was the outsider, while the guys were the experienced insiders, paling around.  They know what's what; she is, as Gibson said, extreme.

I hope that no one thinks I mean to be critical of MSOC, who did a great job.  And, as I said before, I could be wrong, but in fact I've seen this happen so many, many times, that I suspect I'm right.  In professional contexts that I operate in, this is how people are marginalized, and I've seen it happen a lot.  And I felt that MSOC's final comment was indeed marginalized. Mind you, she is just getting a foothold into this world, so one might even think being on the margins is just to be expected.

What I do think - or at least want to suggest - is that it's good to try to look at things in this way, because factors like these make a difference.  

Originally posted to JPete on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 10:09 PM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  what might help with that (7+ / 0-)

    That is, MSOC was the outsider, while the guys were the experienced insiders, paling around.

    Maryscott isn't a Democrat and has never expressed ANY interest in impeachment (at Daily Kos, anyway).  

    no offense intended, but I think this is a non-issue.  there was a diary at MLW about the mysterious "silence" in the blogosphere after Maryscott's TV appearance . . . . so mysterious . . . not the topic of discussion, but Maryscott's appearance and why wasn't it front-paged at every liberal blog?  funny how that gets crossposted here on a Dem blog where impeachment is discussed almost daily.  

    it's ALL about Maryscott.  

    if you perceived an element of "outsider," look at the medium, the credibility FoxNews has here and the fact that impeachment is a critical issue to some of us.    

  •  Ok. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Avila, KiaRioGrl79, kraant

    So if I'm getting this, your contention is that MSOC was an outsider and thus "marginalized".

    So what?

    You know leaders are different from ordinary people.

    They lead.

    And it seems more and more are starting to agree with MSOC every day and less and less with John Gibson.

    So who's on the margin?

    And who cares?  MSOC is who she is and says what she says and she didn't work blue (in the profanity sense).

    What's the fucking problem?

    •  The problem is exercising some control over (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      the message that one does send out.  

      That is extremely important.

      •  You might want to send that message (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KingOneEye, Avila, kraant

        to MSOC.   She obviously didn't get the memo as she had no control over her message when given ample time to relay ...her...a...some...message.

        The more I think about it, the more I think about other bloggers who could be in her place, and the more I think back on her performance....the more I hope she hangs up the gloves after that one.   Each viewing just makes me realize more and more how god awful it was and how I most certainly do not want her representing the movement that she has never played a part in and can't even come up with answers about...impeachment.

      •  I don't think so. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Avila, kraant

        I don't think being a Stepford Dem is persuasive.  I think it looks fake and phoney the way the Thugs look fake and phoney when they parrot the talking points.

        I like to think the people are waking up, but for sure I'm not going to sacrifice principle on the altar of expediency.

        Because then we are no better than them and I'm going to die anyway.  Might as well be for something I believe in.

  •  My bigger concern is what Gibson (5+ / 0-)

    basically admitted to today; his reason for having MSOC on. MSOC is good on camera, and she acquitted herself well, but she's playing against a fundamentally stacked deck. She's there to be the crazy liberal that makes all other Democrat look crazy as well. And she's speaking to an audience that isn't going to be convinced by her arguments, no matter how persuasive, no matter how well stated. It's a situation where I don't think she can win, and I'm uncomfortable with allowing Gibson to do that.

    I respect the hell out of MSOC, and she's obviously free to do whatever she wants, but I disagree with her on this one, not because of what she's saying, but because she's going on a forum where she never has a fighting chance.

    "Even the President of the United States sometimes must have to stand naked"-Dylan

    by AnnArborBlue on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 10:27:54 PM PDT

    •  I just don't know. She can't start at top. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I share your respect, by the way.

      In contrast, Cindy Sheehan seems to me a better media figure right now.  She just chats away and does not really give a damn what people think of her.

    •  Given Gibson's motive (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pb, Fe, ChiGirl88, ek hornbeck, BobzCat, kraant

      I think that MSOC had exactly the right approach.  Gibson introduced her as a crazy leftist.  He was obviously preparing his audience to see sparks fly between the screaming liberal blogger and the sober Washington insider.  Instead, MSOC was calm and articulate.  Of the two, Beckel was easily the more excited one.  And I have to give Beckel props for refusing to play along; Gibson portrayed him as the moderate, but to Gibson's dismay, Beckel insisted that he was a liberal.  That's good not only because it ruined the battle that Gibson was setting up, but also because it's good to see a Democratic insider who is not afraid to call himself a liberal.  In Gibson's own column discussing the appearance, he described the encounter in a way that fit his preconceived notions, saying that MSOC's insanity rubbed off on Beckel.  I don't think that anyone who saw the segment would have viewed it that way.  

      •  Well, I think Beckel did play along. He made (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        it very clear that he and Gibson were the pals and the insiders.  That was the subtext; who are the trustworthy professionals who know how things really work?  Did he even address MSOC once?

        •  Are you kidding me? (6+ / 0-)

          What show were you watching?

          Beckel killed Gibson's entire frame from the beginning and intentionally so.   He did so before even getting into a single issue.


          •  That's assuming the superficial frame was the (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            real frame.  There was a subtext and Beckel contributed a lot to it.  That's really what the diary is about.

            At least I think there was a subtext.  I don't know how intentional it was.  And I would be interested in someone's saying that there was a different subtext.

            There just about always is a subtext - at least, that's a fruitful assumption.

        •  Beckel made clear (6+ / 0-)

          that contrary to Gibson's setup, he was 1.) a liberal, not a moderate, and 2.) would really like to see Bush impeached, but doesn't think it's a good use of resources.  I think Gibson wanted Beckel to say that only far-left lunatics are discussing impeachment whereas sensible people wouldn't dream of it, and that's not at all what happened.  

          •  I'm not at all sure that what you think he wanted (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Beckel to say was really part of the real action.  Given they are such good friends - as they seemed to be and were said to be - there is something odd in the idea that Gibson didn't know what Beckel would say.

            •  Well, I will grant you (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Avila, kraant

              that it's odd that Gibson didn't realize that Beckel considers himself a liberal.  But I still think that the "old friends" theme was overwhelmed by the "two liberals refusing to play Gibson's game" theme.  Gibson even says in a follow-up column that he got angry emails from conservatives who didn't understand why he let two Democrats on his show with no one to balance them.  Gibson's viewers didn't think that this was two insiders marginalizing an outsider; they saw it as two Democrats ripping on a Republican.  In his column, Gibson had to twist the truth to explain the segment, redefining Beckel as a "moderate" despite his explicit denials, and insisting that Beckel had caved in because he came in contact with the angry "far left" represented by MSOC.  I'm just not sure where you get the idea that the real action was Gibson and Beckel acting like old friends.  

  •  You really thought a lot about this... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Avila, tlh lib, BobzCat, kraant

    Well, that does it:

    MSOC's appearance on FOX has now officially been over-analyzed.

    Now if only the campaign staffers for other Democrats would bother to debrief and analyze media appearances in the way you just did, maybe we'd see less of our people getting steamrolled on shows like Hardball.

    Jpete do you happen to work in the field of public relations or journalism?  It would be good to see you helping them out!

    Hey, that wasn't very...

    by diplomatic on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 10:28:24 PM PDT

    •  I can't tell what part of this is serious, if (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      any of it is.  I don't have much expertise in this area at all, but someone who is good at it could really take it apart.

      What the find are almost certainly things that influence viewers a lot.  So it seems to me ok to think in these terms some.

  •  At first, I thought she seemed stiff and (6+ / 0-)

    uncomfortable. But I re-watched the linked clip (I have no TV, so I'm only seeing small screen). Then I watched it again. Pretty clearly, she was the only one on the segment with a brain or a principle, IMO, Gibson and Beckel had about the weight of your average Taco Bell commercial in comparison.

    She was 10 times better than her earlier appearance, which makes me think that by, say, June or July she'll be kicking way bigger ass than Gibson all over the screen, probably in multiples, like beating Hannity to death with Colmes maybe. I'm looking forward to it.

    (none / 0), (none / 0), it's off to kos we go, with a...

    by doorguy on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 10:31:35 PM PDT

    •  I've watched the clip several times (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KingOneEye, Avila, kraant

      I disagree entirely on your praise.   Principle is excellent and she obviously was standing on it as compared to the others but that isn't what counts on tv.   I haven't seen her previous appearance so I can't comment on any improvement or lack thereof but I hope she will take my comments into account if she wants to be any type of worthy spokesperson in the future.   I was simply aghast.

      •  From your comments that I've read (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tlh lib, kraant

        so far, I think I prefer the presentation I saw her make. That appearance is already defining "blogger" and probably "liberal" as well in iconic ways for some numbers of viewers of that program. It will shape how you and I define those terms as well.

        Blogger isn't what you think it is, and it isn't what I think it is, it's something this whole community and many others like it will decide in the next few weeks (and have been deciding for the past several).

        That means your criticism, like my praise, is "on the run." And I'm guessing that an awful lot of Heisenberging is going on here.

        (none / 0), (none / 0), it's off to kos we go, with a...

        by doorguy on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 12:11:08 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I think she has great potential. If she wants to (0+ / 0-)

      make she might think of getting some professional training.  

    •  You get a four (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Avila, tlh lib, Fe, kraant, NJwlss

      merely for suggesting that someone beat Hannity to death with <sub><small>Colmes</small></sub>

      Given a choice between a real Republican and a Democrat who acts like a Republican, Americans will choose the real Republican every time - Harry Truman

      by tiggers thotful spot on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 10:48:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  lol ok (5+ / 0-)
    1.  Gibson introduced Beckel as an old friend.  Though he knows MaryScott, nothing was said about their acquaintance.  (My memory could be faulty, but I'm pretty sure this was true.)  Gibson and Beckel were very obviously pals.

    How long has he known Beckel?  Who knows.
    How long has he known MSOC and how well?  A few radio call-in spots over the course of a few months.

    No fault there.

    1.  Throughout the session he referred to his old friend as Beckel, while MSOC was "MaryScott."  In context where you're indicating who is meeting professional standards, stuff like that is important.

    Bob Beckel is a...get this....professional political strategist.
    MSOC is a blogger and not a professional (which showed, and not in a good way).

    1.  Beckel has 352 words and MSOC 120.  (I'm counting them from the transcript that appear in the diary which my above comment was linked to.)

    Are you kidding me?  Do you want to include the context of MSOC sat their staring blankly at the camera after saying a few words while the camera stayed on her, Gibson stayed silent, and she just had nothing else to say?   The word count was completely the fault of her either being stageshocked or not having a clue what to say.   The opportunity was repeatedly there and that was probably the most glaringly bad part of her performance.   She came across as if she had no idea what to say when silence was just begging her to speak.

    she calls for impeachment on principle

    That she did do.   Rather ironic given the fact that, in the past 7 months, the only time she has saw fit to include a diary even remotely connected to impeachment (as opposed to her personal outrage du jour diaries that run rampant and drift off without any further word) was when she decided to...(GASP!)...use Feingold's censure motion to bash the Democratic Party which she declared is dead to her and the reason why she left the party for good to become an Independent.  There are many who are active in the Impeachment movement...she is not and never has been.

    I hope that no one thinks I mean to be critical of MSOC

    No, it actually appears as if the entire basis of your diary is to defend the performance on the basis of her being marginalized by micro-factors....when the reality is her performance was simply bad without any mitigating factors taken into account.

    And no, she did not do a great job.  If she wants to do this in the future she needs to actually be able to answer questions and look like she knows what she is talking about.   If that performance became a regular feature then it would be MSOC marginalizing those who support and are actively promoting impeachment.  

    And yes, I am criticizing MSOC.  I thought the performance was a shame for waht it had the potential to be. Maybe next time she'll step up to the plate but this time was an extreme disappointment.

    •  I'll have to say that when you've got two (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      pals chatting away, it is extremely difficult to think of what to say to break in.  I've been in this situation tons of times and couldn't count on dealing with it, though I might have been able to do so finally.  But in any case, I've seen many people go through it.  It is very tough.  In effect, she was an outsider from the get go.

      The point about Gibson's saying Beckel is an old friend is that he was in effect drawing lines.  He apparently knows MSOC quite well, so it could have been naughty to do that.  Or clueless.

      •  It was an odd pairing from the get go (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Avila, kraant

        Blue vs. Blue

        Beckel was honorable in putting that bullshit theme to rest in the beginning.   Maybe that through MSOC off, maybe she was stageshocked, maybe she just doesn't know waht she's doing unless she can be faceless and rant and rave and use shock value as her main fuel.

        Whatever the case, she should be ready to ignore the creds or treatment given her or any other guest, and go on there as herself with an agenda and good answers for any question she can imagine they'd throw at her.   She was simply bad this time.   Maybe next time will be better....I have my doubts, as bad as this performance was.

        ...and hey...

        ....maybe she'll actually join the impeachment movement too since she allegedly is real big on it on principle now...or something... :-)

        •  Can't disagree more (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          eugene, Euroliberal, kraant

          I just went back and watched the show again. Her closing remark was about as authentic an expression as I've seen on TV/talking heads shows. Remember, I don't own a TV, so my experience is somewhat limited.

          I'm thoroughly experienced at hearing bullshit, however, and I think her expressions, her tone and especially her close (maybe when she loosened up enough to let fly?) were the best antidote I know.

          (none / 0), (none / 0), it's off to kos we go, with a...

          by doorguy on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 12:29:06 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I dunno (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      eugene, Fe, kraant

      I honestly didn't think she was that bad.  My view is probably influenced by two factors.  First, Gibson was trying to paint her as a frothing-at-the-mouth leftist freak, and her short, direct answers countered that, even if she might have gone too far in the other direction by failing to fill the silence.  Second, she didn't start stuttering or stumbling, which is what I would expect most first-time FOX guests to do in a hostile environment.  True, I'm judging her performance by "inexperienced blogger" standards, not "experienced pundit" standards.  To look like a professional pundit, she'll have to do better, and constructive criticism is important.  Nonetheless I thought it was a decent job.  Reasonable people can disagree.  

    •  i have to agree (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KingOneEye, Avila, tlh lib, kraant

      With apologies to Eleanor Roosevelt--noone can marginalize you without your consent. I think that some people fall into the trap of being more like a proud family member instead of observing with an objective eye. Although I see her name often, I have not yet read any of MSOC's diaries. I did hear a clip of her radio appearance a couple of weeks ago--I believe that was with John Gibson too--and, to an objective ear, she did not acquit herself well. Sorry, but it was not interesting radio. Let me add that I have nothing against MSOC. I have seen comments from her from time to time in other people's diaries, and she appears to be an intelligent, funny, and passionate person. I am afraid that did not come across on her tv interview. I defended Beckel in a previous thread when someone bashed him for no reason other than he was not MSOC. However, he didn't denigrate her in any way. In fact, he bolstered what she had said.
      As far as the word count, tlh lib is exactly correct. Nobody put a muzzle on her. She spoke very slowly and paused often. Beckel talked a mile a minute. If MSOC felt she was being marginalized, she had many opportunities to raise her voice, speak faster, or turn the conversation to things she wanted to talk about. Did you see Randi Rhodes on Lou Dobb's show? Noone could have shut that broad up if they wanted to.
      There was discussion in the older thread about Gibson calling MSOC by her first name and calling Beckel by his last name. There was all kinds of offense taken at that. It was said it was disrespectful. That's not how I saw it at all. To me, it came across that Gibson knew Beckel and he probably always calls him that. I thought Gibson was respectful to MSOC and gave her as much of an opportunity to answer his questions as he did Beckel. It kills me to say so, since i cannot stand Gibson. I think he is an opportunistic asshole. however, fair is fair, and I will call it as I saw it.
      This is not an attack on MSOC. There are some people who shine on radio and tv, and some who are better suited to the written word. I love Maureen Dowd's and Molly Ivin's commentary, but everytime I have seen them doing interviews on tv, I am bored shitless. That doesn't make them any less intelligent or important. It simply means that people are most effective when they stick to what they do best.
      Just my humble opinion.

      I didn't get Jack from Abramoff...I'm not a Republican!

      by nonnie9999 on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 11:13:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  about the word count: I cannot tell you how hard (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        it is to do what one want in that context.  You know what it's like to be around two talkative friends who know each other better than they know you.  Unless they ask you questions directly, you're sufficiently out of synch with their style, that it's hard to get into the conversation.

        •  Hey JPete (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Avila, nonnie9999

          Did you even see it?  Have you even watched the video?

          Unless they ask you questions directly, you're sufficiently out of synch with their style, that it's hard to get into the conversation.

          We are talking about when she was directly asked questions and then sat there blankly staring at the camera with dead silence as both of the others, Gibson and Beckel, waited for her to continue....only to get her staring at the camera for many seconds on end with not another word to say.

          What are you not getting about that?  It seriously makes me wonder if you've even watched the video with your comment above.   Holy crap.....did Home Depot have a clearance sale on Strawmen this week or something?   This site is rampant with them the past few days.

        •  i was just at a condo meeting tonight... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          tlh lib, kraant

          i am the new kid on the block. i just started going to meetings, and this was just my 3rd one. the other attendees have known each other for many years. they know each other's families, life histories, gossip, etc.. i don't even know everyone's name. however, my roof leaks, there are red ants all over my front lawn, and i am still waiting for the condo's insurance company to let me know when my broken windows and doors will be replaced (we were in hurricane wilma's path and got our asses kicked).
          i had 2 choices:

          1. sit there and be uncomfortable with my lesser status and keep my mouth shut, or
          1. realize that this was my opportunity to hopefully prevent my bedroom ceiling from disintegrating further from water damage and becoming my bedroom floor, triumph over the red ants, and replace the doors and windows i have not been able to fully close since october (which only encourages the aforementioned red ants to take residence within).

          instead of allowing anyone to marginalize me, i jumped in when i sensed an opportunity, interrupted if i had to, and was as loud as possible while still being civil. i used humor whenever possible. i bring new ideas to the table. i go there prepared with facts and figures. instead of being ignored, my questions are taken quite seriously. my opinions are valued, and my suggestions are applauded. i do this at every meeting, and i am quickly becoming someone to reckon with.
          this doesn't come easily to me, as i am not comfortable in groups, especially among people i barely know. i am basically an introvert. however, there are times when you are faced with an opportunity when you can do something to make your world better--whether it be your own home, a 52-unit condo, your city, or your country. when faced with that opportunity, don't sit around and wait for someone to ask you the right questions. frame the argument, have your facts on hand, and go for it. people might not agree, but they will listen. make your points well enough, and it won't matter if you are "in sync" with anyone else's style.

          I didn't get Jack from Abramoff...I'm not a Republican!

          by nonnie9999 on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 12:17:33 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's exactly what one wants to do. (0+ / 0-)

            And it sounds to me as though they opened up a space for you to do it.  

            I did something similar recently at a conference, and I realized from the "feel" of the audience that some people didn't like seeing a woman break into the guys' discussion, despite my having an official role.  Sometimes one cannot win.

    •  Dude (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      YOU go on TV for the first time in such a situation and see how well you do. She did very well for her first time out. Most people - Gibson included - have said it was good. Of course she could be better, everyone has room for improvement, and next time - and yes, there WILL be a next time - she will not hesitate, even for a moment.

      What did you expect? That she'd change the world? It was a very brief chat with two other strong personalities.

      As to MSOC and the impeachment movement...a woman who writes "Impeach Bush" on every piece of money that passes through her hands is someone rather more committed to the effort then you realize. She is a strong supporter of impeachment.

      Not all her diaries are posted here. Come over and read at My Left Wing where you see the full range of her work. She's written on impeachment OFTEN. She is all in favor of it.

      I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

      by eugene on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 04:45:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Let me add to the overanalysis (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ek hornbeck, kraant

    I haven't read other diaries on this, but this was my reaction to Fox segment:

    It was immediately clear, no admission necessary, that Gibson was setting up Beckel and MSOC to fight it out.  I thought that Beckel's early points were brilliant - no fight here.  Anyone who thinks they're going to see the fractured left, look somewhere else.

    MSOC didn't take the bait either, to her credit, and was amicable.  My only criticism was that (and please don't jump on me for this) she could have played up the comaraderie with Beckel more in both words and manner.  I don't mean that she shouldn't disagree with him.  But to counter her "angriness," she could have smiled more, been a bit approachable.

    The reason why her word count is so low was because her answers were curt.  Short.  Serious.  To the point.  They were effective getting the message across, but less effective countering that stupid "angry left" label.  And in terms of anger, she could have gutted Gibson by saying that 70% of Americans don't approve of Bush and it's getting awfully crowded in the angry left corner.

    Of course, it's a tough thing to do, I think that MSOC does good work, and we'll all get better at this sort of thing thanks to her.

  •  People worry too much about FOX News (7+ / 0-)


    It's like debating whether she did a good job on David Koresh TV TM of convincing the Davidians that Koresh wasn't divine.

    If you're still watching FOX News at this point, you either are:

    (1) In need of serious 12-step program help, or a cult intervention, or both, or

    (2) Working for Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting and in need of filling your daily quota of right wing corporate media outrages (it's like a cop going to his or her favorite speed trap!), or

    (3) Clinically brain dead.

    We're talking about the 37%-ers here! These are tough nuts to crack, so to speak. A lot of these people would still gladly vote for Bush if he started World War III tomorrow, and in spite of the fact that he can't even run for President again.

    Given a choice between a real Republican and a Democrat who acts like a Republican, Americans will choose the real Republican every time - Harry Truman

    by tiggers thotful spot on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 10:55:15 PM PDT

  •  I can't stand John Gibson (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tlh lib, kraant

    he looks like the Senator from the first X-Men movie that wants to register mutants and stuff.  That and he's a conservative hack pretending to be a newsman.

  •  I thought (11+ / 0-)

    Beckel and MSOC were both excellent.

    By being so calm and lowkey MSOC played against type. Made her points in short concise understandable phrases. And looked positively reasonable. Not what Gibson wanted.

    Beckel basically ripped up the script and gave MSOC big props. He simply refused to play Gibson's game

    All that said, I STILL believe no good comes from appearing at Fox.

    No persuadables.

    •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

      it might be that things are so set up that there is never any chance to persuade.  I'm sort of trying to get at why and how that happened this time.

      •  To be honest (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Tirge Caps, ek hornbeck, BobzCat, kraant

        I think you overestimate Gibson's intelligence. he is an idiot, in real life.

        He thinks MSOC is just a wacko and would flip out on Beckel. Or calm him a coward or something.

        That's why he led with the Hillary question.

        It seemed clear to me that MSOC and Beckel just throttled his plan.

        •  MSOC says Gibson hearts her. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          And he has her weekly on his radio show.  That influenced what I was saying.

          •  Sure he does (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Meteor Blades, kraant

            HE thinks she is good radio.

            •  BUT what is 'good' radio... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              to john gibson? he knows who his audience is. good radio to him is not a hearty debate that explores the shades of gray of an issue. instead, good radio to assholes like gibson, falaffelman, and sean insanity is talking to a person who disagrees with their twisted views and being able to tell their audiences that they kicked their guest's ass. they don't want to invite people who are great debaters. they want people who they think will not be prepared. it is not radio to inform or enlighten. it is hate radio designed to provide people for their hating audiences to hate. when they are done, they do their victory dances, write bullshit books that their moronic audiences eat up, and then do it all again the next day.
              so, when you say that gibson thinks that msoc is good radio, i am afraid he merely thinks that she is an easy target.

              I didn't get Jack from Abramoff...I'm not a Republican!

              by nonnie9999 on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 12:33:51 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  i pretty much agree (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Avila, nancelot, kdrivel, kraant

      except that i think there are more persuadables out there than you realize, even on FOX. ceding the field doesn't help us any.

      crimson gates reek with meat and wine/while on the streets, bones of the frozen dead -du fu (712-770)

      by wu ming on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 11:47:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kraant, nonnie9999

        With Bush having 64% disapproval ratings and FNC being the most watched cable news in the U.S., one has got to assume that they aren't just being viewed by those who will support Bush no matter what anymore.

        I'm not saying that there is neccesarily a statistical correlation because their viewership could statistically be completely comprised of those within the 36% and the numbers still be legit....but I doubt it and I think it's gonna be more so as time goes on.

        What a clusterfuck of a sentence that was.   I don't feel like rewriting it so I hope the point comes across lol.

        •  it didn't (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kdrivel, kraant

          but i doubt that any cable news station gets anywhere near 36% of the voting populace, ever. that being said, FOX is often left on at businesses, gyms, and the like, and many folks aren't as discriminating or even ideologically aware as we assume that they are. hell, my liberal republican parents (yes, they do exist) often leave fox on, as they complain about it. there are reachable people out there, even fox viewers, and a party that has faith in the rightness of its vision should not shy away from preaching to the heathens, as it were.

          crimson gates reek with meat and wine/while on the streets, bones of the frozen dead -du fu (712-770)

          by wu ming on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 01:02:45 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  I noticed (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tvb, kraant

    that Beckel's big head filled his frame, while they made MSOC look small by showing more of her.

    Dont get me wrong I've been in love with MSOC since I first read her "motherfucking diaries" and I thought what she had to say was great.  This was apparently MSOC's second appearance on FOX so someone has an eye on her.  In the future I would suggest she:

    1.  Speak as loud as she types
    1.  Smile from ear to ear

    If she plays her cards right she could become a minor (or major) media figure.  She already has some acting credentials so there is great potential there.

  •  Ok, jumping in. (9+ / 0-)

    I just watched the clip.

    You know what?

    It was not about anything deeper than "who's more of a lefty, Maryscott or my old buddy here?"

    Why is that so difficult to see?

    MSOC wanted a discussion, and they wanted to have a "hey Beavis, pull my finger" session.

    fight the greed and the federals / fight the need and the toxic spills / drink from that wishing well / but may it never quench your thirst...

    by Page van der Linden on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 11:05:32 PM PDT

    •  in a way (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I'm agreeing with

      MSOC wanted a discussion, and they wanted to have a "hey Beavis, pull my finger" session.

      But there's a bit more.  This didn't happen in a playground.  It happened on national TV.  And they weren't dirty little boys (though that was close).  They were the professionals who know what's what.

      Putting this together gets really what I'm saying.  But it provided the context for an attempted political statement.

      And I think it MAY also have conveyed the message that it really is extreme to think we should impeach the president.

      The last is not good.

      •  Uhhhh nope (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Avila, kraant

        And I think it MAY also have conveyed the message that it really is extreme to think we should impeach the president.

        No it didn't.   Not in the tiniest bit.

        •  well, we really disagree. My stomach sank at the (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          end, because I could feel how the contrast she drew between strategy and principle has been building and what it would really mean.

          •  Think about what you're saying (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Avila, nonnie9999

            What is Beckel's job?   His job is to devise strategy to get Democrats elected.  Period.    So he's about strategy?   Um okay so?

            What party does MSOC belong to?  By her own words, the Democratic Party is dead to her and she is no longer a member (which lost my respect across the board).   So she's allegedly about principle and doesnt care about strategy to get Dems elected, the mission of this very site?  Um okay?  

            So, seeing as how she's not a Democrat and thus couldn't give a rat's ass about strategy to get Dems elected, he gets paid to get them elected, he did not state that he is against impeachment except strategically, she didn't come across as marginalized except for the fact that she simply didn't do a good job with her message when given AMPLE opportunity....

            what the fuck is your point?

  •  linky? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I have not seen it yet.  I had better get up speed.

  •  IMO (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eugene, kraant

    And as others have said, I agree that MSOC did a great job because she said less, and said it well. Her statements were short, calm, rational, and pointed, and that threw Gibson off from the get-go. Beckel, on the other hand rambled on, enough to make it a bit annoying for me. I know everyone does that on these shows to get their message out--that's the strategy--but seeing as how he essentially backed MSOC up, I don't think it was strictly necessary this time; I think she scored more points by doing the unexpected, and by breaking the expected Fox frame of the 'angry left' (as Gibson put it at the beginning of the show).

    •  yup (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pb, Kane in CA, BobzCat, kraant

      the brevity of her statements gave them more impact, in a sticking in your mind kind of sense. short, declarative sentences = good.

      crimson gates reek with meat and wine/while on the streets, bones of the frozen dead -du fu (712-770)

      by wu ming on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 11:49:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Soooo (0+ / 0-)

        what did the staring at the cam with several seconds of silence like a deer stuck in the headlights do?

        Made me think she looked like she was definitely out of her league without her keyboard and should not be the blogger chosen for that role.

        •  An unforgiving assessment... and totally wrong (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bostonjay, kraant
        •  you've made your point (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          pb, JPete, kraant

          i simply disagree with you. that's still allowed here, isn't it?

          crimson gates reek with meat and wine/while on the streets, bones of the frozen dead -du fu (712-770)

          by wu ming on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 12:59:07 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I just checked the video over (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          pb, nancelot, Kane in CA

          And watched it looking for pauses. There weren't any, at most she was pausing at the end of sentences and when Gibson tried to take advantage of that to interject she just bulldozed over him.

          The occasional glances away from the camera, and the attendant loss of eye contact weren't good, but by the end she'd loosened up a bit and stopped doing that.

          This kind of debate is a dominance game, and honestly she p0wned the two of them. If she gets the eye-contact thing down pat she'll smash the next person on TV. Without visuals and only audio, which is how a lot of people who have the TV on as background are perceiving it, the eye-contact thing is irrelevant.

          Also note that Gibsons voice is pitched high which is an indication of friendliness/submission whereas both Beckel and MSOC are pitching their voices low which indicates dominance/authority.

          This just makes Beckel and MSOC look good and Gibson look like a waffler which is probably why he had viewers complaining to him about it.

          If MSOC and Gibson had gone hammer and tongs against each other those complaints would never have been made, no matter that the complainers claim they were complaining about the lack of "balance".

          Don't be a fuckhead! HTH k thnx

          by kraant on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 12:59:55 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I just re-viewed the video (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Kane in CA

          She does not pause for several seconds. She does not pause for one entire second. She pauses for a split second. In my opinion, and clearly many other folks' opinions, she appears thoughtful and poised. You may be angry with her, for whatever reasons, and you may disapprove of her performance, and that is your right, butit isn't fair to distort her presentation. No deer in the headlight, no multi-second dead air. Period.

          As far as others being able to out-perform her, possibly. But Gibson (jerk that he is, asked her. And she accepted. It is what it is. You seem hell bent on picking her apart. Jeesh.

          Many others with far more experience have been slaughtered on Fox. Not Maryscott. That being said, I thought she did a fine job.

          •  I seem hell bent on picking her apart? (0+ / 0-)

            When she decided to take upon herself the mantle of self-proclaimed spokesperson then, yes indeed, she opened herself to being picked apart.

            I stand by every single word I've said regarding that performance.    Your first paragraph is simply dishonest unless you were watching it through some rose-colored psychedelic prism.

            •  You made your feelings clear (0+ / 0-)

              by the 13th time you said it: I sucked.

              AT this point, I'm beginning to think you're repeating yourself out of some perverse pleasure in telling me so.

              I got it. I sucked. Mea culpa.

              For the record, I don't think your initial criticisms were inacurrate -- but by the time I read it this final time, the validity became overshadowed by your schadenfreude.

              I don't think I did well, at all. I was scared shitless, and it showed. If well-wishers choose to see it through rose-coloured glasses, that's lovely -- but I am NOT unaware of the flaws and fuck-ups.

              You have made your point.

              •  Or maybe... (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                nancelot, Kane in CA

      's not that we see it through rose colored glasses, but we believe the strengths far outweighed the weaknesses.

                We are all our own best critics. We all know when we've done wrong. Where we could improve. But sometimes, we focus on that to the exclusion of what we did well.

                You were scared shitless. It kinda showed at first and then seemed to go fine. And even when you were scared shitless you recovered well. All of us who said your appearance was good were not wrong. Incomplete, maybe. But not wrong.

                I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

                by eugene on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 06:52:49 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  For your information (0+ / 0-)

              I went back to the video again. Retimed it again. First pause: just under one second. Every pause thereafter: less than one second.

              "Your first paragraph is simply dishonest unless you were watching it through some rose-colored psychedelic prism."

              To call me dishonest and disparage me with sarcasm is clearly a reflection of your penchant for going after Ms. O'Connor. I am not one of her "followers"; I do respect her right to her opinions, as I do many people who post here and elsewhere. What I do not respect is name calling.

              People who resort to ad hominem attacks reveal more about themselves than they reveal about their targets.

  •  It's very late and my cats and my partner (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:


  •  Holy cats! (6+ / 0-)

    Have four minutes and twenty-seven seconds ever been so thoroughly desconstructed? Are we sure we haven't left any structural stone unturned?

    Maybe not. I have yet to see a good conflation of Marx and Freud applied to this encounter. It might lead us to a different interpretation: one that recognizes the desire (clearly repressed) by Gibson for a father figure (perhaps Beckel), which the presence of MSOC exacerbated, leading to castration anxieties in both men, which were themselve symptomatic of an media system which has alienated television anchors and political strategists from the necessary sexual sublimation of creative work. It is the lack of this creative (read: sexual) activity that causes additional castration anxiety, a condition that ultimately characterizes the Fox News context. MSOC's calm, simply and clearly expressed messages further disturbed the equilibrium of the men, reminding them of their own failed masturbatory experiences, which have long ago stopped yielding the spurted seed of intellectual potency.

    Perhaps we can apply a touch of Husserl (or is it Heidegger?) to our understanding of MSOC's dasein relative to Beckel's hiersein. Or a trace of Derridean joie de vivre in the subtle smiles that punctuated MSOC's subtext messaging. Throw in a little de Saussure, a smidge of Lacan, a dollop of Barthes, and voila!

    The flogging will be complete.

    "Words are little bombs, and they have a lot of energy inside them." -- Christopher Walken

    by BobzCat on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 12:17:14 AM PDT

    •  brilliant!! n/t (0+ / 0-)

      I didn't get Jack from Abramoff...I'm not a Republican!

      by nonnie9999 on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 12:43:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  lol (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Avila, BobzCat, kraant

      Have four minutes and twenty-seven seconds ever been so thoroughly desconstructed?

      Not since the Kennedy assasination!  On a related note, rumor has it...that if you play the video in slow motion you can see a "magic bullet" barely grazing John Gibson's shoulder, ricocheting off the FOX telemprompter, teleporting over to MSOC's studio and missing her entirely.

      Maryscott can dodge bullets!

      Hey, that wasn't very...

      by diplomatic on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 12:44:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Interesting that you think critical analysis is (0+ / 0-)

      flogging.  I live in a world where one gets taped and then criticized bit by bit.  It's how public speakers improve.

    •  Mission Accomplished (0+ / 0-)

      As stated above, the MLWers felt not enough attention was paid to their blogmother's latest thingie. So here we are--drum roll.. trumpets-- a whole thread dedicated to Maryscott Maryscott Maryscott Maryscott Maryscott. And all her blogchildren have come over to beat the drum, voices I enjoy and respect, people who used to post here about politics, BushCo, the D's, DC, you name it.  But now they only stop by to post about Maryscott Maryscott Maryscott Maryscott Maryscott.  That is always the only subject.  Not impeachment. Not FOX. Not strategies for the next election.  Just Maryscott Maryscott Maryscott Maryscott and her fabulous career.

      As someone who has always valued her writing, and who has refrained from commenting on all this for lo! many many diaries now-- out of friendship and long admiration...may I say.. well, you get it, what a pity.  what a bore.

      •  I'm very sorry. (0+ / 0-)

        But that diary at MLW, written by a reg, did not refer to the diaries at DKos. It was about the absence of any note having been made at the big blogs that usualy DO take jnote of any blogger who gets on television.

        Frankly, I'm baffled that you see this as a swarm of MLWers. The vast majority of people who recommend my diaries (or diaries ABOUT me, which I DO think is overkill) are not MLWers.

        I do understand the impetus to overanalyse this Fox thing; it's still a novelty to see a blogger (especially one we "know") on television.

        Here's hoping it becomes de rigueur.

        •  well. thanks (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Maryscott OConnor

          For my part, I'm sorry for the heated tone I struck and grateful for your response.  I differ with you on FOX and the Dems, but that doesn't matter.  I value your writing, as I said, and am always interested, often amused, sometimes inspired, rarely ruffled by your take on things. I read you with almost as much gusto as you write.  True, you seem to attract a level of sycophancy that annoys me.  In these parlous times, I tend to obsess about issues, not personalities (unless it's Smirky McWhacko & his gang of loons, always fair game) & frankly, I sometimes worry about you keeping your balance and your head in the midst of so much intense feeling and projection. Never mind.  Mostly, I wish you well.

          I just hate these bloody MSOC-centered diaries. From here on in, I'll scroll on by.

      •  Look, this diary is about looking at sub-texts, (0+ / 0-)

        the message beneath the surface that almost everyone picks up unawares.  I could be wrong about what the message is, and clearly some people "read" through the message to get what MSOC wanted.  But it should be a good thing to look at sub-texts.  The Rethugs are aces at setting them up; we are not.

        What's so striking is the hostility at raising this sort of question.  

    •  Secondly, and relatedly, the analysis (0+ / 0-)

      I gave has two features that importantly distinguish it from most of the ones you mention.  First of all, it's theoretical commitments are really minimal; there isn't anything like the Freudian unconscious invoked, not general class warfare, etc.  Secondly, none of the ones you mention has much empirical validity and some of them have been thoroughly discredited and are not employed in any rigorous field.  (Marxian analyses are exceptions, IMHO, to what I'm saying, except they do employ a highly challenged theoretical structure.)  The kind of analysis I presented, which hardly deserves to be called analysis since it counts as so minimal, does have a lot of empirical validity and is routinely used to track the way people involved and watching form judgements in many, many contexts.

      •  I think you're right (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Kane in CA

        both in your analysis... and the impulse to analyse.

        It's a pity this is about me; if it were about someone else I have a feeling it might not be quite so heated.

        For the record, I have learned a lot from this diary, and since I'm more likely than not to be asked to appear on more segments like this one, I am grateful for the help.

        It's fairly surreal to find myself in this position, since I never imagined the possiblity before this year; but now that I'm here, I don't want to fuck it up. There is more at stake than my image (or SELF-image); if I'm tobe asked to speak on issues on television, like it or not, I'm not just representing myself. And it's incumbent on me to get better at it.

        So, thanks. I mean it.

        •  Somehow I missed your (0+ / 0-)

          comment.  I am very grateful for your reaction.  I'd love to think I might have helped a bit.  

          I do think you should consider getting a consultant of some sort.  Not because you are defective in some way, but because there are all sorts of stuff we ordinary folk don't understand/know how to evaluate, etc.

          You have an important message and potentially you are a very, very strong media presence.

          Good luck!  

      •  Snark (0+ / 0-)

        Just a little song, a little dance, a little seltzer in the pants.

        I thought letting some air out of the balloon might be a good thing right about then.

        "Words are little bombs, and they have a lot of energy inside them." -- Christopher Walken

        by BobzCat on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 08:53:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Another diary on this? (0+ / 0-)

    Actually, if you want to know the TRUTH, AL GORE said Bush broke the law VERY eloquently on January 16 and many times before. Too bad no one was really listening (except of course, to use it to say run Al run! here). And while I can speak for myself on issues, if anyone does speak for me, it is Al Gore.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site