Skip to main content

This debate at Democracy Now between a former NSA Lawyer and Daniel Ellsberg was interesting for what they said, but even more interesting for how they handled the loudmouth NSA defender who was constantly talking over Ellsberg and interrupting him every time he tried to express his own position.

After asking him several times to let Ellsberg speak, they finally just started turning his audio off when it was time for Ellsberg to respond. Then he would be asked to respond and be given equal time to do so. (Unlike Fox News, or right-wing talk radio, where the non-rightwinger's mike is just cut off with no chance for anything but a token response, or just cut off, period.)


Are these right-wingers who do this just natural obnoxious loud-mouthed rude steamrollers? Even the otherwise "ladylike" Marsha Blackburn and Michele Bachmann do this consistently and with utter aplomb. It seems clear that it's part of the media training they receive.

Will someone please start training Democrats, liberals, and progressives to SPEAK LOUDLY when they need to, i.e., when they're dealing with someone who constantly tries to talk over them? They don't have to come off like Gilbert Gottfried (not that there's anything wrong with that!) but they do have to start learning how to deal with this extremely annoying tactic.

Either that or just go on media shows that have the sense to deal with the loud-mouths the way Democracy Now does.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
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

  •  Democrats are constantly bringing a knife to a (9+ / 0-)

    rhetorical gun fight. As you note, it's why we get our butts kicked all the time by the moronic bullies of the right, who KNOW they can do Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity-style filibusters in any "discussion," and be considered more manly for it.

    "Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

    by Kombema on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 08:48:40 PM PST

  •  It is part of the right-wing media conspiracy... (8+ / 0-)

    ... The right-wing foghorns are instructed to simply blast, blast, blast all over and right through any opposing viewpoints.

    They must be talked over and told to SHUT UP (and in those words, if necessary).

  •  And when they lie, don't be afraid to say so (7+ / 0-)

    Don't start hemming and hawing and hedging and explaining. When they lie, just say, "You're lying."

    Ellsberg allows himself to be put on the defensive here, the rightwing dingbat should have been cut off much sooner.

  •  i want to hear "that's what limbaugh said" or "you (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bluefin, leftykook

    sound like limbaugh" or "isn't that what limbaugh says?"- put a rush tattoo on their foreheads for the rest of the interview when they repeat the lies and stupid

    This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and GOP lies by broadcasting sports on over 170 Limbaugh radio stations.

    by certainot on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 09:57:19 PM PST

  •  One Way To Make Them Stop Talking..... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bluefin

    is to start rolling your eyes in an exaggerated manner or start laughing like you have a bowl full of jelly.  Similar to Santa.

    They can't stand to be mocked.  One of their biggest claims against Liberals is that we think Republicans & their supporters are ignorant, red neck or dropouts.

    They....will....not....be.....mocked.  They have to stop talking in order to call you out.  When they stop talking, Dems should
    quickly make their fact based points w/ a straight face & the statistical framework to back it up.  

    •  Ask Al Gore how well that worked for him (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bluefin, Kangaroo

      Gore was utterly lambasted for sighing and rolling his eyes at the Bullshit Mountain GWB piled up trying to go Gish Gallop on Gore during the debates.

      The better tactic is to come up with a "please proceed" moment or to go Lloyd Bensen and burn them with a "I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. You, Senator, are no Jack Kennedy."

  •  I've been frustrated by this for a long time. (5+ / 0-)

    All one  has to do is stop the discussion and say "please don't interrupt."  They WILL be stopped if one calls attention to their interrupting and asks them not to do it.  If they do it again, stop the argument and remind them they're interrupting.  Trying to talk OVER the interrupter is not effective, they're trained to just keep on talking, louder if necessary.  The key is to direct attention to their bullying, which is what interrupting is.  Most Dems don't even get nearly THAT far; rather, when interrupted, they'll argue back against whatever bullshit point the interrupter has tried to make.  

    It takes practice not to immediately defend oneself when attacked, but otherwise Dems will "lose" every time, since Repubs are not trying to argue content, they're trying to prevent Dems from speaking... and they do.  Why aren't Dems smart enough to figure that out?

    I saw Matt Damon on tape doing it the right way, during election 2012.  Some woman tried to interrupt and talk over what he was saying.  He stopped, said "you're interrupting; please stop interrupting."  She  shut up.  THEN he said, "Why do you believe that (what she had just said)?"  That's the OTHER key thing -- put the onus back on them to defend whatever bullshit position they've just tried to articulate.  They can't do it, since their arguments lack logical continuity and consist of nothing but talking bullet points, so they're now on the defensive, and their tactics reveal themselves.

    With Repub public dialogue, it's about NOTHING but dominating the conversation.  I see it consistently everywhere.  George Lakoff consistently says Dems always think logic wins arguments.  It doesn't work -- logic doesn't even register with right wing nuts.  It's always about "winning" by shouting and dominating.

    "There's always room for cello." Yo Yo Ma

    by ceebee7 on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 01:38:13 AM PST

  •  I used to support Democracy Now. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    koNko, Bluefin

    This clip could be used as a text book example of the abject failure journalism became in the US. But this is the standard that Americans expect now because it's all they have.  The purpose isn't to inform viewers by presenting a competition of ideas. The purpose is to induce a greater flow of adrenaline, to make the heart rate pick up a bit, and to appeal to the viewers' emotions, not their intellect.

    The show's producers would prep the guests before the interview rolls but they want their presentation to look like this. They think it's compelling. Amy Goodman knows what's best for her show. I say the title is a little outdated.

    This is why so many Americans still don't know what's wrong with the NSA's practices and they spout  nonsense with determination and conviction. As if an emphatic delivery could somehow substitute for sensible ideas. It's mass media that trains Americans to memorize and repeat pointless remarks like " Spies gather intelligence because it's their job and every country does it." It's mass media that confines its focus away from what matters to concentrate on distractions like the one Amy used as her lead question: "Traitor?"

    Turn it off and try listening to your own intellect for a change.

    There is no existence without doubt.

    by Mark Lippman on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 02:49:48 AM PST

    •  I tend to prefer Juan González (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bluefin

      He actually asks real questions and did in this episode.

      No one is coming to save us, the future is in our hands.

      by koNko on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 07:23:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  "Democracy Now" (0+ / 0-)

      is the reason Americans don't know what's wrong with the NSA?"Democracy Now"is 'mass media that trains Americans to memorize and repeat pointless remarks...'?
      Wow,you're a beaut.

      'The tyranny of the ignoramuses is absolute and inescapable' A.Einstein

      •  I was an enthusiastic supporter as recently as a (0+ / 0-)

        year ago. Democracy Now was one of the last news outlets I trusted. It was one of a few exceptions that maintained high standards. There aren't many American journalists who have been as heroic as Amy Goodman in their careers and she wouldn't be the first to lose her credibility.

        It's obvious that I'm talking about a problem that's much bigger than Democracy Now.  When I say that this is all Americans have I don't have to explain that the corporate mass media isn't delivering information that citizens need in a democracy. I wouldn't have expected Democracy Now's quality to suffer because I thought it was independent.
        The way news is delivered, especially on tv, has been getting worse for years. 2013 was an exceptionally bad year.  I wasn't surprised to see that Reporters Without Borders also noticed a steep decline in press freedom in the US during 2013.

        There's a lot more at stake than Democracy Now. What the public sees and what they don't see have a cumulative effect. It's noticeable when I travel to places where there is still a strong freedom of the press and free exchange of ideas. When that is the norm, there's room in the civil discourse for people to disagree without deliberately misrepresenting someone else's ideas or name calling. When it's all you know it seems normal.

        There is no existence without doubt.

        by Mark Lippman on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 06:05:50 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I am offended (0+ / 0-)

          by your continued effort to smear Democracy Now and Amy Goodman.While some of your comment on' corporate mass media' sounds accurate, it is inapplicable to Democracy Now, and to continue to conflate the two is ludicrous.You give no information regarding your conversion on the road to Tarsus that enables you the clarity to smear Amy and her show.As a daily viewer/listener,I find Democracy Now to consistently maintain the highest standards of journalism while illuminating topics that never see the light of day on almost any other available daily show.The information,sources,and stories discussed every day on this show are relevant ,in depth, and off the radar of MSM and the vast majority of citizens.The knowledge I have gotten about national and world affairs from this source is incalculable and unique.Democracy Now ,in my view,has contributed more to 'a strong freedom of the press and free exchange of ideas' than any other audio/visual platform in this country,and abundant evidence exists to attest to its integrity and value.To continue to smear it -without evidence or reason, I might add-is despicable.

          'The tyranny of the ignoramuses is absolute and inescapable' A.Einstein

          •  The basis for my criticism would be easier for (0+ / 0-)

            anyone to understand by taking a peak at the diaries I post here to see what I write about. I go deep into topics that are unreported or undereported. I find the part of the story that mass media omits. Goodman's show still does some of this but it has shifted its focus so that it resembles the rest.
            I know too much to believe I'm getting the straight story from that source all the time.

            Example: The Syria story blew up during the annual summer recess Congress takes. Before leaving, the House voted, and both parties approved, a bill with very hawkish language calling for regime change in Syria and ordering the President to show his plan to get it done.  

            It's in the Congressional Record, The transcripts and video of proceedings on the floor don't lie.

            After Aug 23 when Medecins Sans Frontieres reported its staff was getting sick from second hand chemical weapons exposure and Obama started talking about possible military action, certain House members appeared in front of tv cameras with their soap boxes. Even though they were the ones who raged on the House floor only weeks earlier because Obama was dragging his feet, they said No, he can't, when it started to look like he was going to do what they ordered.

            But the mass media crafted its own fictitious version of the story. Warhawk Obama vs a war-weary Congress and Amy sold that koolaid too. Maybe the conflict between executive & legislative is more compelling to viewers?  

            How would viewers know that the same House reps who feigned outrage about using the military against Assad on Sept 1, had insisted only weeks earlier on retaining the most militaristic language in the bill, when the few who opposed it tried to excise it?

            That was around the time I dropped Amy because she should know better. But she adopted the false narrative the corporates conjured up. There's something very wrong with Congress when it practices this kind of deceit.

            A couple of months later Amy sold that utter bullshit story Sy Hersh fabricated about warhawk Obama who cherry picked intelligence in the run-up to war.  Talk about a legend who trashed his own reputation. Do you wonder why that tale disappeared without a trace instead of growing legs? Hersh took public information that had been around for a year and claimed it was given to him by a former intelligence agent who wanted to remain anonymous. Sad. Pitifully sad.

            Back in the day, journalists risked their reputations if they reported without substantiation or attribution. You needed something so big it would take down the President to go out on that limb. How can somebody like Amy compete if she sticks to professional standards?

            She could report on the mass surveillance investigation conducted by the European Parliament's Civil Liberties Committee but then the American public would start to understand the gravity of the issue. One of my readers here called the 52-page report "mind boggling."

            Why is there a blackout on this information in the US?
            The EU is going forward with plans that will cost the US economy a quarter of a trillion dollars because of the NSA's activities. All you see in the US media is an inexplicable charade with Francois Hollande in DC for a state dinner, then flying to San Fran to meet with the CEOs of data gathering tech companies . . . on the very same day that the European Parliament measure for a Digital Habeas Corpus comes to a vote and clears an important hurdle. Those tech companies, Google included, are going to be booted out of Europe.

            Where's Amy on all of this? Why isn't she reporting on the way that Holder lied to his EU counterpart last November by telling her that that PCLOB would conduct independent oversight on the NSA to restore trust. When PCLOB reported that collection of telephone metadata is illegal, Holder brushed it off, said they were wrong. He put it in writing that there would be remedies and the document is on the European Commission's website.

            But how would the American public know about any of this. How would they know that their democracy is being stolen from under their noses while they argue about whether Snowden is a hero or traitor, which isn't really what matters.

            But it keeps everyone busy and distracted away from what does matter and that's the point.

            There is no existence without doubt.

            by Mark Lippman on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 01:16:21 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Thank you (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Mark Lippman

              for your thoughtful polite reply,and I will look into your diaries.Your criticism of Amy about the Syria story is difficult to evaluate as information from the area is unreliable and inaccurate at best.I can only say that important as this issue is,Democracy Now has covered probably 120-150 stories of equal import and gravity in depth since late August, and done a daily headline report that puts shame to anyone else on air, as well as following up on the Syria story.They do a helluva job! and anyone thinking an independent news report with the scope and aim of Democracy Now could be infallible is delusional.You can cherry pick this story and find it flawed-but do you imply ipso facto that they are unreliable overall?Also you vacillate between calling the report out for buying into the corporate/administration framing and jumping the shark with out of the box (and in your words) presumably discredited information from Sy Hersch,before going back to claiming Amy a shill for Holder?Honestly,I find Amy's narrative much easier to follow.I may very well be wrong but I sense a competitive environment replete with envy here.In any event,I will go read your writing and remain a staunch supporter of both Democracy Now and Amy Goodman,who  I still  regard as an American hero.

              'The tyranny of the ignoramuses is absolute and inescapable' A.Einstein

              •  There's no satisfaction for me in having to be so (0+ / 0-)

                critical. I suppose I could say that Democracy Now is one of the best news outlets if not the best in the US. What I really mean is it's not as bad as everything else.  It's a return to the situation described by Bob La Follette when he ran for President in 1912. This could be said today and it would be current:

                But what do we find has occured in the last few years since the money power has gained control of our industry and government? It controls the newspaper press. The people know this. Their confidence is weakened and destroyed. No longer are the editorial columns of newspapers a potent force in educating public opinion The newspapers, of course, are still patronized for news. But even as to news, the public is fast coming to understand that wherever news items bear in any way upon the control of government by business the news is colored; so confidence in the newspaper as a newspaper is undermined.
                A couple of years ago Amy Goodman showed up on MSNBC for a panel discussion on the mass media. She said that corporate owned news outlets are complicit in delivering lies to the public.

                There are a lot of ways to lie. Omission is the most prevalent. TV news does the rightwing corporate interests and the Republicans who front for them a big favor by keeping some things quiet. On the liberal side of the spectrum, they create issues where there aren't any.
                Examples: the cancelled insurance sob stories, the IRS investigation into 501(c)(4) tax exemption for tea party organizations.

                The government shutdown on Oct 1 was predictable 5 months earlier, but the media didn't breathe a word.
                The GOP attempts at extortion by using the debt limit would probably cause mass panic if it was ever fully explained. Instead, the media gives a platform to people like Rand Paul who's either lying or ignorant when he says capping the limit won't cause default because there's plenty of revenue coming in. This is a real danger.
                How about some common sense? The shutdown came on Oct 1 because no budget had been passed and no money was appropriated to keep the government going.

                Sine 1790, appropriations have been an annual routine in Congress. The Budget Act of 1974 includes a calendar of deadlines for completion ahead of the new fiscal year on Oct 1. The Republicans began 2013 by calling for the No Budget No Pay Act. In May, when Reid motioned for the "regular order" of reconciliation between the House and Senate versions, Senator Shutdown Cruz objected. The protocol in place since the first session of Congress was trashed. He stood before the other 99 and said that "regular order" would only take place if the Democrats consented in advance to the outcome of the reconciliation as he dictated it. Reid explained how it had been done for 225 years. Boxer patiently and kindly described the process of negotiation and compromise, consistent with democracy. Cruz responded by calling for Reid to be censured because he used the word "bully" in his speech.

                The entire year ran out and no budget was ever done. The government was shut down and the media never said a word about how it came about. Somehow it was Obama's fault. But the Constitution only gives Congress the authority to appropriate.

                What ever happened to James Rosen, the Fox news reporter who used classified info he obtained from State Dept employee Stephen Kim in a piece he published. There was much howling about freedom of the press at the time because a reporter was under investigation. It would have a "chilling effect" on the press if journalism was criminalized. As if there was any journalism or freedom of the press being practiced. So what happened to Rosen and Kim? Why did the media ignore the outcome of that story when it seemed so important last April or May.

                What about Afghanistan? Do Americans even know whether there are still troops there? What they're doing?How often does anyone seen a report with audio and video that shows what's going on with the US presence there?

                I'll stop there.

                There is no existence without doubt.

                by Mark Lippman on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 06:07:39 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

  •  Tit For Tat (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bluefin

    In game theory the effective way to deal with a situation like that is Tit For Tat. If someone tries to talk over you, talk louder.  You can't do that if you don't run the mics, so you have to level the playing field.  Neutral ground, insist on your own feed.  That way, if they try to edit the interview in post, you can air the unedited version.  

    Right wing media likely won't want to agree to any of those terms.  They want home court advantage, control of the mics, control of the interview.  

    Democrats try to be the adults in the room and end up getting steamrolled and look weak.  They don't do themselves or the country any favors showing up on Fox's home court.  

  •  I caught that debate (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    unfangus

    Guess I don't have to explain why I was yelling at my PC, LOL.

    What to do?

    A used dish rag works. Well, more than one in some cases.

    No one is coming to save us, the future is in our hands.

    by koNko on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 07:17:10 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site