The Pardu

The Pardu
Watchful eyes and ears feed the brain, thus nourishing the brain cells.
Showing posts with label WSJ. Show all posts
Showing posts with label WSJ. Show all posts

Monday, August 31, 2015

Oh No Wall Street Journal, Oh No!


...You Didn't...

Embedded image permalink

Didn't another Ruppert Murdoch employee decry the diminution of American Journalism!


O'Reilly laments that the standards of journalism



When the chickens come trolling in!

American conservatism, no matter the inadvertent nature of its SNAFUs, is disgusting.

StumbleUpon

Friday, July 10, 2015

Obama Accomplishments As Past Fodder For MSNBC Hardball's Ratings


Obama will be no one's Lame Duck. And, for Mr. Chris Matthews, Obama has led!




In October 2014, I was sitting in front of the LCD monitoring watching MSNBC's Hardball, Chris Matthews, My viewing of the cable network was to a much lesser degree than in past years for a few reasons.

First, Phil griffins order to "de-Left winging" his network was to put it mildly disconcerting and extremely disappointing. despite the apparent business case for moving Right or moderating its left Lean, the decision was one of great heartburn What has come of the network has validated the indigestion and led to far less viewing MSNBC.

In compliance with the "de-lefting," evening show (flagship) hosts are to the person broadcasting segments that are as akin to reality TV silliness. From Sharpton's frequent music entertainment segments, through O'Donnell's way too lengthy laments about "The Simpson's  staffing issues. Yet, nothing in the de-lefting equals Chris Matthews obvious sucking to moderate, blue-dog, and conservative viewers.

Matthew's obvious affinity for Rand Paul was the first sign of "need to stop watching" for me.  If you doubt my chagrin with Matthews, why would Breitbart News run a segment in which Matthews jumps to the defense of Paul?  Also of note, why is Matthews the only MSNBC host with whom Paul will share a camera and questions? During Paul's revelations of plagiarism and serials copying of speech text and written word of others, Matthews was noticeably absent in criticism. As Matthews finished an interview with Paul, I distinctly recall words to the effect their thought process were like to the point of scary (paraphrased).  It is impossible for the MSNBC host not have full knowledge of Paul's background regarding civil rights legislation, his serial plagiarism, and his admission of using "Mis-information" for personal gain. Paul is vying for the GO nomination isn't it possible he would frequently adorn what I call Paul "The Chamelon" act?


Image used to denote changing position to suit the listen. Not intended to denote looks or psychical similarity.
To solidify my point, I recall a news headline during at least one period of Nielsen ratings, that read Hardball ranked higher than The Rachel Maddow Show. Of course, the period ranking was a flash ranking, but a true indication of how Matthews's appeal to conservatives can carry a degree of corporate value.









Note: Matthews as he played to his pseudo liberal, Libertarian and moderately conservative audience.
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Do you think Obama is ready to change in his last two years and become a real chief executive, not just a really good speech giver, or an inspirational leader, but actually accept the job of running the U.S. government? Is he ready to take that job on every day, 24/7, I'm the guy running this place? Is he ready to do that?
When Matthews clones conservative short term thinking and to think with regard to flighty ratings based reporting, he falls to the level of zero credibility.   

The transcript of the linked segment did not include Matthews's giggling through a question of "Is anything going right for this administration." The short answer should have been, "we are not fighting ISIS with boots on the ground and we are far from suffering through a recession." Alas, no panelist spoke-out, but then they were not programmed to speak as such.

Matthews was obviously playing to conservatives among his viewers. He may have also taken a slap at POTUS based on his obvious contempt for Obama's lack of showing (what Matthews considers) force against ISIS. He occasionally performs on air protestations that surely warmed the hearts of conservative viewers. Warming the heart of conservatives without question helps Hardball's ratings, but leads to watchful and suspicious eye targeted on Matthews.

As a supposed journalist that I would refer to as a television news personality (pundit) who from time to time writes sales focused books. I am reticent to use the words historian regarding Matthew's books, as I am not certain the works contain sufficient historic passages for archiving as pieces of history.

While the quasi-progressive Matthews offers direct hits against US conservatism from time to time he should carefully review the president's full terms in office before chuckling through a segment that was so conservative focused Reince Priebus must have blessed the script. 

A few months after the slam Obama segment the state of the Union provided a direct affront to Matthew's pandering to the Right. Obama's 'go-foward' agenda was clearly delineated and the president has follow-through on just about all points and initiatives.


How can one consider Matthews pandering to the Right any differently than pandering if the person considers the Obama 2015 SOTU Address?


Business Insider published an intriguing graphic that delineates the craftiness and focus of the resident.


Well, little wonder the Congressional members on the Right rarely stood for applause!  If Matthews was of a state of mind to support more robust waging of war against ISIS, including boots on the ground, he may have left the SOTU less than excited. In fairness, I actually recall Matthews commenting about the robust scope of the 2015 SOTU.

If you did not clink the link above and sit through the full address with enhanced charts, the following CNN SOTU Address points are relevant showing we cannot expect a (golfing) lame duck president over the course of Obama's remaining months and years. 

2015 SOTU Key Points
2015 State Of The Union Points

Implementation of a minimum tax for 
multinational companies, which would 
fund additional tax breaks for companies 
that create jobs in or move them to the 
United States. Even bigger breaks for 
high-tech companies, and financing help 
for manufacturers locating in economically 
hard-hit areas.
• The creation of a China task force to 
monitor trade violations. Aggressive 
inspections to intercept "counterfeit or 
unsafe goods" from foreign countries.
• Support for partnerships between 
companies and community colleges to 
train workers for new careers, all coordinated 
through a single government program.
• Rewards for effective schools, coupled
with encouragement to follow their own
curricula and methods. State laws that
require students to stay in school until
graduation or age 18. Extend college tuition
tax credit and double the number of work-study
jobs over the next five years.
• Beefed-up border protection, combined
with a law to create a path for undocumented
immigrant students to become legal U.S. citizens.

• Support for partnerships between 
companies and community colleges to 
train workers for new careers, all coordinated 
through a single government program.
• Reduction of red tape that delays or 
halts infrastructure construction projects,
funded by money no longer being spent 
on wars
• Support for a mortgage refinancing program 
for all "responsible" homeowners, funded by 
"a small fee" on large financial institutions.
• Establishment of a financial crimes unit of 
investigators to crack down on large-scale 
fraud and protect investors, and a second 
unit to investigate abusive lending practices 
and institutional gambling on risky mortgages.
• Establishment of a financial crimes unit of 
investigators to crack down on large-scale 
fraud and protect investors, and a second 
unit to investigate abusive lending practices 
and institutional gambling on risky mortgages.
• A ban on "insider training" by members 
of Congress, and limits on elected officials' 
investments in companies they regulate. 
Lobby reform. Simple majority vote within 
90 days on judicial and public service 
nominations.
• Reform of the tax code that includes the 
so-called Buffett rule, a minimum 30% tax 
rate for individuals whose income exceeds 
$1 million. No tax increases for anyone 
earning less than $250,000.
• A request for authority to streamline
the federal executive branch.


• Continuing international pressure on 
Iran to scrap its nuclear weapons program.


• Maintenance of a strong military while 
cutting the budget by nearly $500 billion. 
Legislation to protect against cyber-terrorism.


• Passage of tax credits for companies that 
hire veterans. Creation of a Veterans Jobs 
Corps to help cities hire former military personnel.



Since taking office in 2008, the president's record in accomplishing SOTU initiatives and proposals is good.  The Wall Street Journal archives a report card of progress towards SOTU speech proposals. The graphic is linked here and is a great quick view item. 

While we do not yet have a report card of Obama;s progress form his 2015 SOTU. We should also keep in mind Obama has worked thorough an impressive list of accomplishments without any degree of assistance, support or legislative practice from the GOP and Blue Dog Democrats.

Our work on this screed was not per se to attack or disparage Chris Matthews. The MSNBC host is a committed progressive and often tackles tough issues with full frontal attacks (on conservative pundits and politicians). He, however, sees to broadcast segments with intent that seems counter productive to all things liberal or progressive. The segment linked and embed above is a perfect example of our point. We knwo that Phil Griffin, has ordered a "de-Lefting" of his cable news network. 

Since we understand business, and the fact conservatives and Independents spend far more time soaking-up cable network entertainers cloaked as journalist, we understand the need for Griffin to seek more lucrative revenue opportunities. We simply ask for Griffin and others to stand tall from their yachts and private jets to accept responsibility when via their corporate edicts help to hand the nation back to the the GOP in 2016.



StumbleUpon

Thursday, January 16, 2014

Escape Income Inequity And Poverty Via Marriage! Seriously?


If I practice polygamy, does that mean I will become a Top 1% (er)?

Are we to believe that getting married will impact the following graphic representations? Moreover, is political/social Right actually posturing such?  I believe  Marco Rubio spoke the insane statement and at least one noted Right-Wing operative/mouthpiece has done same.

cbpp income inequality 2011.png
Poverty Rates for Adults by Gender, Race, and Ethnicity, 2010

































We wonder if economist agree with the Right-wing talking-point?
_____________________________________

Whenever I lower myself to peeping at CNN, I am overly cautious about exposure to Fred Zucker's recently hired: Ari Fleischer.



As we suffered the first few years of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney's first-term, we sat through daily lies from Fleischer as White House Press Secretary. Since we screed-ed on Fleischer last fall, we will simply link that piece to avoid redundant rehashing of our contempt for the man as a Right-wing demagogue with little to no credible substance. 
Just before Bush and Cheney charged into Iraq equipped with WMD lies and a completely manipulated nation, and allied "Coalition," Fleischer served up what one writer called the "WHOOPER OF THE WEEK."

An even more poignant example of Fleischer "Hire me, I will lie" model was captured by Crooks& Liars in September, 2010. 

Paul Begala Calls Out Ari Fleischer For The Lies He Told That Got Us Into Iraq
By Heather September 1, 2010

If these Bushies want to come on the air to attempt some turd polishing about why the Bush administration chose to invade Iraq, a country that was not a threat to us, then they should be treated the way Paul Begala treated lying propagandist Ari
 http://crooksandliars.com/heather/paul-begala-calls-out-ari-fleischer-lies-h

Read much more

Fleischer has appeared all over CNN whenever the network wants a GOP opinion about any utterance or appearance related to president Obama.  His utility as a Right-wing fdunct8ionary spans well beyond paid television punditry.

Fleischer was intimately involved in the hire of the former Georgia State representative hired into Susan G. Komen as a key figure in a plan to eliminate Komen funding to Planned Parenthood. Komen's funding debacles eventually led to a drudging for the CEO of Susan G. Komen and embarrassment for conservative America. Another case of Fleischer involvement that went way south (excuse the pun) on conservatism.


Writing for the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), Fleischer works to advance a fairly new GOP talking-point: "lift one's self out of poverty and gain income inequality by getting married." Did you notice the focus on women vs. men? How do impoverished men lift themselves out of poverty?  


The talking point is as ludicrous of consideration of Fleischer as a credible pundit and consideration Rupprt Murdoch's WSJ as fair and open. While the WSJ has always published as a conservative publication, since the Murdoch's purchase the international publication has been turned into nothing more than a Right-wing rag (especially the WSJ opinion pages and OP-ED articles).


The WSJ and Fleischer have actually taken print and internet publication to the level of a copy of the National EnquirerActually, printing or electronically publishing about marriage as a vehicle out of poverty is as low-information and demeaning to people of intellect as I have read in many years. Speaking the point is ridiculous enough; WSJ archiving (via print and electronically) speaks to the Murdoch "yellow journalism" model.


Of course, keyboarding propaganda and far right insanity for the WSJ always leads to another Murdoch property: Fox News. 


Greta Van Sustren provided the Fox News platform and Fleischer followed the script like a well-paid hired hand. 
Linked article and Van Sustren video....Media Matters

Media Matters excerpt (in case you did not follow the link above).
Wash. Post's Kathleen Parker: Marriage "Creates A Tiny Economy Fueled By A Magical Concoction Of Love." In a January 15 op-ed for The Washington Post, Kathleen Parker argued that "being unmarried is one of the highest risk factors for poverty" and argued that an increase in marriages "would help in the War on Poverty":
If I may. This is not a new idea but recently has fallen into disrepair if not disrepute, though it would help in the War on Poverty: Marriage.
[...]
More to the point, we know that being unmarried is one of the highest risk factors for poverty. And no, splitting expenses between unmarried people isn't the same. This is because marriage creates a tiny economy fueled by a magical concoction of love, selflessness and permanent commitment that holds spirits aloft during tough times.
In the absence of marriage, single parents (usually mothers) are left holding the baby and all the commensurate challenges and financial burdens. As a practical matter, how is a woman supposed to care for little ones and/or pay for child care, while working for a minimum wage that is significantly less than what most fair-minded, lucky people would consider paying the house cleaner? Not very well.
[...]
Obviously, marriage won't cure all ills. A single mother could marry tomorrow and she still wouldn't have a job. But in the War on Poverty, rebuilding a culture that encourages marriage should be part of the arsenal. The luck of the draw isn't nearly enough -- and sometimes old ideas are the best new ideas. [The Washington Post1/15/14]
Fox's Van Susteren: "Is Getting Hitched The Key To Getting Rich?" On the January 13 edition of Fox News' On The Record, host Greta Van Susteren asked, "Is getting hitched the key to getting rich?" She claimed that "a new strategy could take the wind out of President Obama's recent war on income inequality," and welcomed former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer onto the show to discuss his January 12 Wall Street Journal op-ed, which criticized President Obama's anti-poverty programs while advocating that policies addressing income inequality should focus more on "marriage equality" than economic restructuring:
Of course, we know Murdoch properties, especially Fox News and the WSJ editorial page, provide information to very specific segments of the population. Each news source counters news from more progressive media; often with degrees of information insanity that is hard to fathom. It would be easy to ignore Murdoch and Fox insanity by turning our backs while pretending it simply feeds 'derangement.' The danger of deranged information insanity should be obvious as it feeds the spread of a nation's descent into information deprivation and cognitive process limited to daily feeds from propagandist.
We are thankful Media Matters monitors Fox News with deep levels of scrutiny, analysis and reporting. 
StumbleUpon

Wednesday, January 8, 2014

WSJ Uses A Black Hitman To Go After MSNBC!

We never realized that News Corp. was so diverse!


Let's take this one from the top.  Around the change of 2013 to 2014, MSNBC's Melissa Harris-Perry attempted to entertain viewers with an all too familiar "year in review" segment replete with a panel of comedians for insertions of frivolity.  We posit 'year in review" segments are mere time air-time fillers with no serious relevance to networks that have a news business model.  While the last comment may read as a bit 'stiff' and curmudgeon-like, we suggest such segments are best left in the domain of late night talk shows or SNL skits' especially when offered with comedians for "color commentary" (excuse the unintended pun... we sought a sports analogy) and presented outside the  scope journalistic standards . That said, Ms. Harris-Perry apologized for the comedian induced comments (she did not personally make the comments and at least one of her panel also issued an apology) and she did so with the most heartfelt emotional delivery as I have witnessed in the entirety of my experience with public apologies. While she did not make the egregious comments, she certainly partnered in developing the segment which included a planned set of words regarding the Romney photo. The apology was in order and professionally delivered.

If you read here often, you may know my personal beliefs and paradigm relates to: "apology. "If we manage ourselves with more critical thought, self-analysis of our actions, and consideration of ultimate impact on others, we will never need to issue an apology. In other words, "Check yourself out before exposing yourself to the need to apologize."

Let's move to another media episode that did not garner an apology. It, instead, was dealt with via lies about "tongue-in-cheek", charges of a lack of humor via (mainstream media), and an advertisement for the host network.

The Christian Science Monitor published the following video segment which covers the Megyn Kelly "White Sante and White Jesus" proclamations as thoroughly as any media. It is a bit long and the video quality is well shy of high definition, but it is comprehensive in scope and delivery.  We ask you to note Kelly's obvious management developed advertisement for Fox News after addressing the issue.  (Forget our racist segment, they attack us because we are "powerfuI.") Kelly may have issued an apology.  I did not see nor hear an apology for offending millions who feel Santa is a mystical spirit  available for the cultural interpretation of people who chose to portray the spirit in terms other than those postulated via "White Privilege". It is also important to remember, Aisha Harris was very careful in not suggesting that Santa is black.  She chose a surrogate object, we suspect  to facilitate humor and to avoid the very scorn reaped upon her article by the very racist Fox News network.  Oh, and Megyn Kelly was no more attempting tongue-in-cheek as I am singing this screed to you.  Her body language, matter of fact look into the camera and privileged host seat comments addressed the issue such that her predominant white audience would derive satisfaction.  And, she did so with an all white panel, while (for effect) inserting "Jesus" into her scornful retort to Ms. Harris. Hey, gotta reach those Fox News evangelicals!

We want to remind, Kelly is a non-credible news personality, before we move to more recent examples of Ruppert Murdoch owned and operated racist business models and 'mind-blowing' crass. Not only were her remarks at the end of the embedded segment ridiculous, contrived and uppity (Fox News uppity), her remarks should be taken in the same context as the following.

In 2011, RT News explored Megan Kelly and Bill O'Reilly's insane analogy of pepper-spraying a group of college protestors  as comparable to being sprayed with a vegetable!

http://youtu.be/YdQcUqYq-D4


Ok, so Megyn Kelly's position in the two segments above was that of a Fox News "tool." Why did we go there?

I am still re-running the first segment for a clear apology (again I may have missed it).  We remain astounded that Fox News management and producers took Kelly's remarks and inserted a commercial via use of the word "powerful" as an adjective in reference to the network. Much more significantly, we used Kelly's racism, in light of the current attack on Harris-Perry and MSNBC from Murodch owned Fox News, WSJ, and (employee) talking heads. Of course, Murdoch's management chose an obvious republican "Black" talking head to level charges of 'tokenism at MSNBC.  Why expose your criticism to counter scrutiny via use of a white talking head?  Facetiously, the impact is just not the same, and use of the black talking-head, in the minds of the feeble-minded and "privileged" conservative. Theoretically, the black critic carries more impact on conservative viewers. The bottom-line, "See the black guy said it so it is true and we canto be labelled racist."  If you need a quick example of how it works click this link.  

After the interview, Juan williams was hired by Fox News after being terminated from his contract at NPR. I read reports O'Reilly was instrumental Williams's hire after being fired as a result of his Fox News "color commentary" (pun in this case intended).

Yesterday The Wall Street Journal's Political Diary writer, Jason Riley joined WSJ Opinion Journal host Mary Kissel in a guttural attack on MSNBC that was clearly aimed at 'red meat' for the conservative WSJ audience and fodder for Fox News viewers.

If you give the segment a viewing, you will see how Ruppert Murdoch has taken US media to a level lower than olden days of "Yellow Journalism."

Jason Rile and Mary Kissel......
http://on.wsj.com/1cyHk0d

Before close let's have a little fun with a set of  quais-syllogisms.

A. Ruppert Murdoch owns Fox News and The Wall Street Journal.
B. Murdoch is staunchly conservative and competes politically and socially with MSNBC as new entities political enemies
C. We can assume that Murdoch properties and employees would reach the level of deploy nerve gas to win-out both politically and socially over MSNBC. 


A.  Jason Riley is a black person (many Black Conservatives do not care for the words "African-American.") who works for the WSJ.
B. WSJ management develops a video segment to disparage MSNBC and by default all African-American's hired by MSNBC.
C.   Riley's comments must be accurate because he is black. 
 syllogism
A point-on syllogism.

A.  All Murdoch properties work to advance conservatism
B.  The WSJ and Fox Are Murdoch properties
C. Therefore, MSNBC progressivism is a logical target for Murdochs conservatism

Jason Riley's remarks read as clear efforts to attack MSNBC and to do so with what he calls "mediocrities."

Merriam-Webster
me·di·oc·ri·ty  \ˌmē-dē-ˈä-krə-tē\
: the quality of something that is not very good : the quality or state of being mediocre
: a person who does not have the special ability to do something well

Mediaite..... 

WSJ Columnist: MSNBC Has a ‘Pattern’ of ‘Hiring Black Mediocrities’ to ‘Race-Bait’

Excerpt
Riley said that MSNBC has established a pattern of hiring African-American hosts that he describes as “mediocrities.” 
Riley, a Fox News Channel contributor, insisted that he “didn’t buy” Harris-Perry’s first tweeted and later tearfully broadcast apologies to the Romney family and to interracial families across the country.
“She suggested that it was sort of a segment gone awry,” he continued. “I somehow doubt that.” He said that the intent of that segment was neither “uplifting” nor “constructive.” 
RELATED: Ann Coulter Calls Melissa Harris-Perry MSNBC’s ‘Token’ African-American
“I think the segment went exactly as planned,” Riley asserted. “Her apology was really about the blowback.” 
“I think there’s a pattern at MSNBC of them hiring black mediocrities like Melissa Harris-Perry,Michael Eric DysonTouré, and, of course — the granddaddy of them all — Al Sharpton, simply to race-bait” Riley asserted. 
He added that these and other MSNBC hosts routinely assert that “all of black peoples’ problems are caused by white people, and if you disagree with that, Mary, you’re a racist.” 
Riley concluded that MSNBC’s modest ratings are “encouraging” that there is little “appetite” for the kind of discourse he identified. However, he said that these points of view are not “representative of the larger black population” or “responsible.”
"Mediocrities." Jason Riley via his comments illustrates the lack of professionalism and seriousness with which Murdoch properties goes about it business.  He agrees to sit on camera to disparage 80 plus percent of MSNBC's African-American hosts and contracted pundits.
Riley specifically stated....
He added that these and other MSNBC hosts routinely assert that “all of black peoples’ problems are caused by white people, and if you disagree with that, Mary, you’re a racist.” 
The statement is so over-the-top hyperbolic and factually inaccurate, it is shameful. Shameful, but not surprising, if you are fortunate enough to have some understanding of conservatives 'yellow journalism.' 


Whenever, a person speaks in absolutes such as "all" and "every" it is virtually impossible to back-up the statement with data. Therefore, you reveal yourself to consideration of motive driven mantra spoken without a modicum of substance.

While MSNBC employees more African-American straight news hosts and talks news (opinion) host we question the wisdom and motive of Riley's attack on over half of the professionals.  

"Race-baiting -"mediocrities."  
Riley's choice of plural noun used as an adjective is without merit and hypocritical to keep my comment clean and civil.  First, his adjective denotes incompetence and a person possibly working outside the scope of effectiveness. His choice of word is wasted as we consider the education levels of both Harris-Perry and Dr. Eric Dyson. Both are learned professors who are more than capable of intelligent, cogent and relevant news related point-counterpoint with associate dialog. Al Shaprton's experience in matter of Civil Rights activism and advocacy, his research staff and production team more than qualify as a competent deliverer of news stories and analysis; as evident by his virtual mistake free broadcasts since the show first aired. Both Sharpton and Toure are capable and willing to speak frankly about matters of race as race due to the GOP is an everlasting and growing area of discourse. While, there are tiems when MSNBC hosts will label a subject racist, the charge emanates for host across the MSNBC racial spectrum. While would Riley's focus on African-Americans who work for MSNBC and who rightfully speak about racism, he criticizes without without inclusion of Chris Matthews who often and rightfully so, levels the charge?  You can answer that one! 

Should MSNBC apologize for staffing its programming with diversity unequalled among all major news networks? Should the network stifle what we all see as ever-present, over-the-top and growing examples of racism from conservative America and specifically some in the GOP?  Do you recall hearing either of the aforementioned msnbc personalities use the words "all black peoples' problems" when addressing the impact of racism and oppression from whites against black?  I watch MSNBC on 'the daily' and I have never heard such and I doubt MSNBC management would allow false assertions to the level charged by RIley. As to the matter of "watching," I do not recall Jason Riley speaking so very publicly about numerous and increasing racism from the GOP. 

In closing, allow me to revisit a topic that I have posited about since starting The Progressive Influence. Jason Riley's should think introspectively before use of the word "mediocrities" to denote his perception of people hired who are not qualified to speak on topics relevant to the mission of the network: news and news analysis.

  

       


http://youtu.be/wNJvfAa90TY

The first image above is part of a revealing study in FOX "news leg-ology." If you watch carefully the subject in the blue dress appears to accept direction from off camera. In any case the hand-dress-raise is as intentional as my keyboarding this piece.

http://youtu.be/q0Ot7RijMAA


We ask, does Jason Riley and the Opinion Journal (WSJ) producers care to leer into their own corporate family for exampled of Riley's misapplied "mediocrities."  We are in no way asserting the photo subject above are "mediocrities."  We will, however, refer you to this very short audio clip from Grethcn Carlson, Fox News host, as we close.


Former Host Gretchen Carlson: "Pants Were Not Allowed On Fox & Friends"

http://mediamatters.org/video/2013/09

We close with what has to be the perfect example of why no one from Murdoch's empire should speak related to "mediocrities." I am certain at least one of these people were hired for other than then mental acuity and commend of current events.  In fact the last gentleman pictured below is the perfect example of what Riley's speaks.

FoxNews blondes hired by Roger Ailes over the years.

If you are going to use the word or imply 'token', make certain that "Someone has shut the front door!
StumbleUpon

Saturday, September 7, 2013

Peggy Noonan: Punditry Gone Rancid! Jon Stewart On Noonan (Video)



Ms. Sunday Morning Peggy Noonan has yet again given us a reminder of the failings of her punditry. Sunday Morning News shows have long provided viewing I can do without. Yet, I find myself sticking on NBC, ABC, or CBS for a few errant minutes some Sundays. 

I literally cringe every time something in me forces watching either of the news shows. It is like knowing I should not scratch that scab off the nasty scratch on my arm.  You know it is not the right thing to do, but you do it anyway. 

First, network television Sunday morning news shows are the unquestioned domain of the socio/political Right. NBC placed "Mr. Conservative" David Gregory squarely in a seat vacated via the premature death of Tim Russert. George will is as much a fixture on Sundays as Peggy Noonan.  NBC more than frequently books Peggy Noonan. Even minutes of viewing (watching and listening) Noonan,  I suffer what can be described as crawling epidermis.

Anyone who views the pundit expects a conservative performance that not only satisfies those with Obama Derangement Syndrome, the viewer gets much more. Her performances also entertain those who may relish unbridled pompousness and gloating elitism. She visits the set with what appears pre-rehearsed non-verbals, strategic hair flipping, and facial expression fit for a person in need of a laxative. She is over-the-top demonstrative to the point of appearing self-aggrandizing.  

Let's face it television is a visual media well before it is an auditory media. You have to look the part, correct?   Now for an example of punditry gone absolutely mad. Noonan's posit in the embedded is based on a piece she wrote about the 2011 debt ceiling debacle. As you watch the over-the-top exhibition with contrived demeanor, think about the 2011 debt ceiling battle. It was the very debt battle that led to Standard and Poor's lowering the US Credit Rating to Double AA (down from AAA). It was the debacle after which Boehner proclaimed "I got 98% of what I wanted."  It was the battle during which President Obama stood-up for not giving-in to cuts to entitlement programs and social services while asking for a meager increase in tax revenue. Yet, then and now we have Republicans practicing their consistent talking point of: "The president does not lead."  Watch as Noonan provided her rendition of "he does not lead."

  
While it is a dated exhibition, it serves well in showing the competency of Noonan's punditry. The pundit gloated and piled it on as President Obama stood tall for the lower and middle income strata while seeking a tax increase.


Pundits are booked on news shows based on their abilities to opine and to partake in oral exchanges with point-retort-counterpoint dynamics. I cannot recall a pundit who fails at that set of skills regardless of Left or Right lean. Of course, I exclude Sarah Palin as I used the words "point-retort-counterpoint." Palin is a Fox News whine her up and let her talk. Give her a three minute introductory-quasi question and have a cup of coffee while she spills drivel across the airways. So, let's exclude the former Governor of Alaska. It was Alaska was it not?
  
Noonan is supposedly competent at a much more visceral level, despite being frequently way off-base in her on-air opining. The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) writer recently posted on the Syria debate in the United States. One would think, a pundit who writes for Murdoch's WSJ, and who is on Sunday News shows almost weekly, would be much more conscience of the state of war in Syria. Note the highlighted sentence in the following embed.  
Embedded image permalink
How could the pundit not have total mastery of the fact the war in Syria has been underway for two years and is a "civil war."


In 2008, Noonan showed her mantle with an obviously contrived and phony analysis as she declared Palin as winner of the Vice Presidential Debate. Factually, Palin's performance was sad and pathetic. Noonan went oozy from the moment Palin stepped out on stage. Is that the level of shallowness one should expect from a highly compensated right-wing pundit? Well, yes it is exactly since her mission was to laud all things conservative throughout the campaign.

Watch Palin's shallowness, pre-programmed and phony. Lest we forget sexist performance! Is it playing-up one's gender to eye-wink in a national debate? What from Palin and her handlers would lead to the placing their perception of Palin as "cute" and sexy (eye-winks) over qualified and competent for high office.  OK, If her look is (was) your preference, then help me belatedly understand the significance of an obvious gender based ploy in a critical campaign debate?   Actually, it was crass and disappointingly shallow.  Yet, another quick look at stupid and shallow. 

Let's place Noonan's Palin debate oozing in perspective to complete ejaculation from Pat Buchanan.  "The most attractive candidate out there."  What???? Fortunately, we did not suffer the horror of Sarah Palin and John McCain within operational distance of the White House, so Buchanan's "attractive," was as irrelevant as it was a shallow manifestation of his aged libido.  

As we considered Palin's contribution to the campaign ticket over the long haul it is easy to recognize fallacy of Noonan's punditry. Palin was without doubt the most incompetent candidate for high political office ever. Yet, both Noonan and Buchanan fulfilled their roles without flinching.

Punditry in the face of a landslide defeat: 
linked.

Trying her best to make the IRS issue a real scandal as prescribed by all during the late spring: linked.

Meet The Press exposure of Noonan's punditry via the Majority report FM: linked.

StumbleUpon