By RobertinWestbury, January 19 at 4:54 pm #

“O’Reilly, Limbaugh and Beck are opinons too.  Unlike Maddow, though, their
opinions are not sound”

I think that’s a matter of opinion - obviously you disagree with theirs.  O’Reilly
often backs his up with fact.  I don’t listen to Limbaugh or Beck so i wouldn’t
know.  In any case my point was that Maddow is not a “newscaster”, but a commentator like the others.

Yes she, like Olbermann , Ratigan & Schultz back up what they say in the way of criticizing what the wrong wingers say and show it for what it is—- half cocked crap that supports their ideology, not reality.

To Gerard, Yes, it is a sort of useless exercise in freedom of speech (people love to see themselves in print), but not a totally useless one. There is, in my opinion, some internal good that can come from seing/hearing like minded ideas, but it’s a shame that petty arguments can erupt between these same like minded people. Not productive at all. 

To Fat Freddy, I know the same person, but I am still trying after many years to turn their tide. So far, nada. But don’t forget there are many reasons why we each choose the right, left, or in between. On the right I find it’s mostly money (as in don’t take mine), religion (as in only conservatives believe, or ” I know you believe but you’re not going to heaven because you don’t believe what I belive”)), race (as in “as long as they don’t live on my block” or “it’s OUR country”), and of course fear (as in let’s kill the world’s brown people before they kill us). I’ve always wondered what we’d do if the world’s Islamic terrorists all looked like blue eyed, blond haired Swedes. It just wouldn’t be the same would it? 

There are others to avoid as well, but maybe your friend has a combo of some of the above.

Marshall said… “... I have no love for
Maddow though; she is opinion, not news.”

I disagree.  I think she covers the news quite fully, and adds her opinions along the way. 

The question is, are her opinions acceptable and believable or not.  When I said she does her homework, I meant she backs her opinions up.  They are sound, whether you agree with them or not. 

O’Reilly, Limbaugh and Beck are opinons too.  Unlike Maddow, though, their opinions are not sound, and they generally don’t attempt to back up their opinions with any research or reasoning. 

There’s a big difference.

Maddow also tries to have them on to rebut her but most do not. Occasionally they have which is good. I am ambivalent putting her into the same stew with the likes of Limbaugh and Roberson though. She only added it at the very end and it was true wasn’t it? No lies or half-truths there so it was just “timing” as Mr. Stewart sees it, nothing more.

I’m all for calling anyone down when they are wrong but was she really? How long should she have waited? A month or year or when Haiti is back to normal, which is a bad state to begin with?

By RobertinWestbury, January 17 at 8:13 pm #

Stewart is likely trying to give the impression of balance.  I have no love for
Maddow though; she is opinion, not news.  And I’ve seen her rebut guests AFTER
they’ve been on despite her insistence that she doesn’t monday morning
quarterback her own shows.

While Maddow maybe shouldn’t have made the one political comment she did….  lumping her together for ridicule with Limbaugh and Robertson was not something he should have done. 

Maddow is the best newscaster today.  She does her homework and she is always polite to her guests, especially those she is in opposition to. 

Cable news people are always going to inject a bit of politics in their commentaries.  The other two though are just idiots whose comments are so crass and unsupportable that I think it’s unfortunate she was lumped together with them.

gerard asks: Is there some way that contacting one another through these strings can do some constructive good? Or is it all just a useless exercise in freedom of speech?  I have been wondering.  What’s your thought?

and some seem to be answering ‘lets give’. Thats a good answer. Lets do this today.

Truithdig is a cool place sometimes.

Including Maddow was good.

Very honest of Truthdig not to cut her section out of Jon Stewart’s critique.

kudos.

I admit that I donated $100 to Red Cross yesterday.  However, it’s very
disconcerting to hear all the news on the radio about how Haitians are getting
virtually no relief aid still!!

The media ignoring history is simply standard procedure!  They don’t want people
to start questioning the background of terrorism, the Palestinian tragedy, the fact
that the U.S supports violent and corrupt regimes to advance our hegemony over
the rest of the globe..blah bla. 

And don’t think I won’t comment on Obama’s puny $100 million in aid after he
just signed away some $800 billion to crooked banks and insurance companies! 
Talk about incongruity!  That’s a nice, offensive gesture quite like smacking a
homeless man in the face with a wad of 100 dollar bills.

My question is: why are we surprised by any of this?  That Rush Limbaugh would be hopelessly partisan and stupid, even mean-spirited?  That Pat Robertson would merely show himself to be the narrow-minded religious demagogue he has always been?  Or even that the excellent Ms. Maddow would insert some level of “politics” into her show?

“I’m shocked - shocked! - to find gambling going on!” (from Casablanca)

This is simply business as usual from the far right, the religious right and the almost right.  (Though, in Maddow’s defense, there is a relevant comment on the other thread in this regard, re Limbaugh).

Peace.

I was over a friend’s house the other night. We were watching TV and the news came on. I made a comment about how unfortunate this event was, especially since Haiti is the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. She asked me if I thought there was a reason for this. I said, “what, that the country is poor?” She said, “No. That this happened to them”. I knew what she meant. I was so flabbergasted, all I could say was, “Yes. They live on a fucking fault line.” Then she said that we shouldn’t be sending any money over there because there are people suffering here. For the life of me, I can’t figure out where she gets this from. I know the Church that she belongs to. It’s a very “liberal” Lutheran Church. The recently retired Pastor, who I know, is the ultimate humanitarian, who just recently returned from doing humanitarian work in Indonesia. Well, now I know where she gets it from. Thanks, John. I won’t be talking to her anymore. Being Agnostic, myself, I try to accept people’s personal religious views, but this is simply too far out there.

Commune115:  One reason why it isn’t discussed is that it falls among that pile of many destitute places which have been “exploited out” to such a degree that the job of making things better requires an enormous amount of work not only in reforms that drastically modify capitalist “principles”—which would take concentrated effort for decades.
  Furthermore, the people who did the exploiting have no moral conscience whatsoever. They are thieves, plain and simple. Under the present “laissea faire” (so-called system) They can look the other way with absolute impunity.  Or they will try to force change if they think elite interests are threatened, such as: Fire Aristide.Or station troops instead of funding education, hospitalss, small self-sufficient economic enterprises.(UN “Peace Force”)
Another thing is the (deliberately maintained) weakness of the U.N. which is denied the power of moral importance in world affairs. (Mustn’t have “world government” or “socialism” or anything that might be helpful to desperate people
  How to break this cycle of deliberate economic pillage and intimidation?  I can’t see any other alternative than the rise of a number of real, brave world leaders whose primary interest and expertise is in building a human future.  Decisions on what that might be could be discussed, ideas and ways, formed now, to make a fertile climate for peace without waiting around for a miracle.

What annoys me is that no one discusses WHY Haiti is so messed up. The US has been invading and intervening in the country for decades, we’ve imposed neoliberal economic policies on that country and backed death squads, but not even the so-called “liberals” in the media will talk about it.

You know what?  This whole twerpy commentary from both sides—ideologically based nonsense—makes me very suspicious that “commentary” has become a contagious disease with us—even here on TD. What good can we really do, struggling to express our deep worries and fears, tryng to make our opposition “understand” each other, trying to help clarify our own opinions based on our past history, our education, our prejudices?  Is there some way that contacting one another through these strings can do some consturctive good? Or is it all just a useless exercise in freedom of speech?  I have been wondering.  What’s your thought?