Pundit Discussion Thread

I don't think Olbermann is the equivalent of O'Reilly, I just said he seems to want to be the anti-O'Reilly and his sort of counterpart to the liberal world.

I still enjoy the Chris Matthews show, although he should admit he's kind of been an Obama cheerleader since the Democratic primaries. Still, he's at least made news like the now classic Bachmann interview.

I'm liking Campbell Brown.

I miss Tim Russert, badly.

I still watch mostly MSNBC, but this election cycle has taught me to appreciate CNN more.

I don't mind if pundits have opinions. What I mind are pundits who A) won't admit they're wrong; B) can only regurgitate talking points rather than employ critical thinking; and C) let their narcissism eclipse the issue.

I don't think Olbermann wants to be the O'Reilly's liberal counterpart because that would involve ignoring facts, bullying guests, and making his show more about his own ego than the day's events.

What sets Olbermann apart from O'Reilly is that Olbermann can admit when he's fucked up. He can admit when his opponents make a valid point. Most importantly, the guy has a sense of humor about himself and the world. O'Reilly just feeds into people's worst impulses and attitudes.

I watched CNN through most of the primaries but once I got MSNBC in my new apartment, I've never gone back. I think Wolf Blitzer's name is a billion times more dynamic than he is, watching John King try to work his giant iPhone is embarrassing, and despite all their pundits, maybe only one or two have anything remotely of value to say.

For me, it's hard to watch either O'Reilly or Olbermann. O'Reilly is just a moron, but Olbermann isn't much easier. His obvious desire to be a Murrow-like newscaster is admirable but it never works for me. Partly because I still view him as the SportsCenter anchor but it's also how high and mighty he can come across at times. On the other hand, I've never seen him do anything like O'Reilly's body language segments. I know it's tough to fill in an hour but come on Bill.

No love for PBS?

That David Brooks guy that PBS always had on post-debate (I think he's a regular on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, too) is a hoot.

Not to mention the fact that, aside from Campbell Brown deciding to suckle at the Republican teat; they fucked up their post debate coverage each time by talking about how well McCain did and then eating their words when the poll results came back.

CNN is trying way to hard to break free from the "liberal" stigma that they (wrongly) got stuck with over the last 16 years.

That, plus Larry King is a joke.


ETA: Olbermann would be 1000x better for me if he toned down the mock rage a bit.

I wonder how high the number of "analysts" will be on CNN come Election Night. I'm hoping they can pack twenty on that fancy set of theirs. Maybe three rows of them. I feel bad for Blitzer and Cooper trying to work all of that.

Well CNN is a mess when it comes to political analysis, but they still seem to me like the more serious news network.

Olbermann doing analysis post debate is unwatchable though, he has no interesting political insights to offer, that's what Matthews does ... Rachel is proving to be quite good at it, but Olbermann, no. He should just stick to his own show.

I agree that CNN is the best news network and I'd love to watch them more. That's what makes me wish their big night coverage was better handled.

Jesus, you guys are a fickle lot. About a month ago, people on this board wouldn't shut up about how great Campbell Brown was for grilling Tucker Bounds and for urging the McCain campaign to let Palin speak (and, consequently, reveal herself to be the jackass that she is). Just because someone's being critical of Obama doesn't indicate Republican teat-suckling. Matt Taibbi's said some less than kind words about Obama in the past, too, and he's clearly far more in his camp than in McCain's.

Maybe Olbermann's not the left's equivalent of O'Reilly, but I get the feeling that some of his fans wouldn't have a problem if he were. The justifications I'm hearing are exactly the same justifications I heard in the early 90s when Rush Limbaugh started getting popular. You don't want insight - you want a cheerleader.

Is it that difficult to provide thoughtful analysis - even with a pronounced ideological slant - without coming off like a self-righteous blowhard? Do I have to be okay with demagoguery just because the demagogue in question happens to be on my side of the political spectrum? I would have thought that Colbert's ongoing parody of this type of thing would have shown just how ridiculous it is in any context.

From the little I've seen of Maddow, she seems to be getting by without the self-obsessed blather. We could definitely use more of that.

I forget which station Brian Williams is with. He's one of the few news guys I can stand these days.

Nbc

Ditto!

/Limbaugh humor

CNN's team should be Gergen, Brown, and Anderson Cooper. Cut the rest of them off. Maybe Begala and a republican talking head to counter him for partisan analysis.

You're spot on about Olbermann, Dave, but for the first time I disagree with you on Brown.

It was like she just flipped overnight or that CNN called her on the carpet for being so vocal about Palin. Either way, it's not what she's saying that bothers me, it's how she's doing it. It seems as if she is trying to overcompensate for her past commentary. And in doing so almost negates said commentary.

But, I agree, outside of this week I don't want a cheerleader. It does no good to live your life in a vacuum, that is why I spent ten years listening to Rush Limbaugh every day. I want to get all views, as long as they are thought out and consistent.


ETA: I absolutely love Gergen, he's fair in his analysis even if I don't agree with his political views.

I personally find Olbermann worse than O'Reilly. I've discussed this before, so I'm not gonna get too far into it. O'Reilly at least has debates on his show instead of interviewing comedians or people supporting the story he's discussing. I'd like to see him challenge someone or have him get challenged.

I prefer CNN's group mainly of Brown and Cooper.

I think Lou Dobbs has some reasonable positions and thoughts on some stuff, but when he gets talking about immigration shit, I turn it off. I can't reconcile some of his beliefs with my own. I prefer him only when he calls bullshit on both sides of the aisle.

Never really liked Maddow all that much... she's been getting better, but I still can't stand the "Republicans are bad, Democrats are good" shtick that her and Olbermann use. It's the same way with the O'Reilly-Beck-Hannity crap of "We're real Americans, not Democratic Socialists" shit.

Chris Matthews and David Shuster went on about Barack Obama ordering orange juice at a Philly diner for an astonishing two weeks, insisting the entire time that he was out of touch with the average voter and unable to close the deal because he wouldn't scarf down waffles and coffee.

So no, I wouldn't classify him as an Obama cheerleader at all. I think he genuinely likes McCain, but is disturbed and confuzzled by Palin. Like most moderates.

I listen to a lot of center/left talk radio and lately there has been a flood of right wingers calling these shows, way more than in previous weeks. Does anyone know if there's an Operation Kaos in effect or anything?

I'd guess that Wallace's reasoning in regard to Palin is additionally colored by the fact that he's got pretty pronounced issues with women. I've been firmly in the Obama camp since the beginning, but I had big problems with the specific ways in which he went after Clinton.

I remember that, and I thought you were being unfair to him. I know agree more with your opinion on that.

Aside from any Palin issues, he did say things like "I felt a tingle up my leg" after an Obama speech, I mean c'mon.

I still value his political commentary and insight.

Well, it ain't exactly like the Left has had a lot of vocal, visible cheerleaders in the last decade. People like Olberman may help in bringing the word "liberal" back from insult-land. Just because we praise the guy or enjoy his bombast doesn't mean we're turning to him for "insight".

Yeah, Matthews. I don't know exactly how I did that.

Rachel Maddow has supplanted Keith Olbermann as my favorite MSNBC talking head. I like Olbermann, but he can be very grating at times, whereas Maddow's unafraid to bring people with opposing viewpoints onto her show and has proven quite a few times that she's more than capable of rational, reasoned discourse despite how insane or downright assholish and condescending her guests might get at times(Frum, Buchanan, et al).

The Frum incident pissed me off the most, but I think that's just because I took his assault on her show as a "I'm the big-dicked Republican bastion of debate, I'm going to tell this silly girl how to do her schtick", and she handed him his pouty little ass on a silver platter.

I'm still feeling my way out on this whole "cable TV" thing. I feel like I just gave up my tin cans and string for a rotary phone.

Which, like I said, is exactly what a lot of conservatives would say when Rush Limbaugh was getting big. Fast-forward 16 years or so, and the bombast is all that the right has left. I'd prefer the left not suffer the same fate. The last thing we need is both sides of the political spectrum represented exclusively by wildly popular, but vicious and empty blowhards in love with their own voices, but unable to articulate a single substantive point.

Cable TV News is overrated. MSNBC wants to play Immanuel Goldstein to FOX's Big Brother shit. While CNN is the biggest "player" of the whole posse, trying to get in any viewers pants by offering whatever brand of shit-thinking it believes will seal the deal. They come across as the most, centered is the word I guess, because they peddle every viewpoint with the same hollow urgency. Your weather vane will tell you exactly what to expect from CNN on any given day.

I like watching Maddow; she's entertaining, funny, and a skilled speaker of English. But I think of her show as closer to Jon Stewart's than as real, straight-up news.

I agreed with him and still do. The problem with his argument is with him though. He has no credibility to tell Maddow what discourse is civil or not. He also made a really lame comparison to the folks at the McCain rallies too.

Well, these pundits are all op-ed, really. None of them are strictly news providers. But there's still a difference between rabble-rousing op-ed and insightful op-ed. I'd say there's a problem when a comedy show regularly makes subtler, more insightful points about politics than pundits, who are supposed to make subtle, insightful points about politics.

I think Olbermann articulates substantive points all the time.

I get what you're saying, but I think we're a long way off from having a dedicated cadre of shrieking left-wing pundits who deny reality at every turn, which the Right already has in spades.

I don't know, every time I tune in he's talking about his ratings vs O'Reilly and has O'Reilly in his "worst persons" of the world.

He also came off as a big douchebag with his reaction to the jokes McCain did about him over the dinner, made Walbergh seem like a grown up.

I have to laugh because you hit the nail on the head.

RAchel is great because she scares the right and their talking heads with her intelligence. It's funny whenever she shows the long list of people she invited to be on her show but couldn't make it. Wish she had less Pat Buchanan though.

Olbermann was kidding. For better or worse, people in the media love it when those they cover mention them in any form, positive or negative.

yt, I listen to Rush Limbaugh almost daily, and while he hasn't exactly put his seal of approval on it, his supporters has started a kind of Operation Chaos Deux movement where they're telling pollsters that they're voting for Obama, just to fuck with pundits and to ensure an overwhelming, surprise victory for McCain on Tuesday.

Of course, we'll never know how effective they are and if there are enough of them being polled to actually sway the results, but it's out there.

I like Keith, but I agree that O'Reilly hijacking Worst Persons every single day is starting to get old and borderline obsessive. All of the shit that's being smeared daily on the campaign trail, and he's still focusing on O'Reilly and beating him in the ratings? He's better than this.

That is hilarious. Toss up must be at anything lower than 12%.

I don't know if I'm one of those you're pointing out and if not, then nevermind.

But I will say AGAIN that the difference between Olbermann and the O'Reillys and Limbaguhs of this world is that Olbermann can admit when he's wrong and he's willing to do due diligence in his research. Can he be a bit much at times? Sure, but there's eloquence and genuine writing ability in his Special Comments where as folks like O'Reilly and Limbaugh just have an endless fountain of rage towards minorities, liberals, women, puppies, rainbows, etc.

I don't like Olbermann because I agree with him; I like him because he doesn't give into this bullshit parity and let assholes like Bill O'Reilly get away with saying shit like Americans were responsible for the massacre at Malmedy or members of the Bush Administration questioning the patriotism of Americans who disagree with the Administration's policies.

And to ElCap about about Olbermann's reaction to McCain's jokes, clearly by changing the lighting to "comedy club" and then firing back a few one-liners about Sarah Palin and McCain's awful campaign, Olbermann was obviously apoplectic.

Meanwhile, BillO thinks the Nielsens are conspiring against him because MSNBC is rising in the ratings. Seriously.

Yeah, and Oregon and Iowa could go for McCain at any moment! Those will be ones to watch come Election night!

I heard him say that live on air (I never watch his show, but my parents do every night and I was at their house) and couldn't stop laughing. He got all beady eyed and serious and started saying how rating's fraud was serious and if he found out that Nielsen was toying with the ratings they were going to be in big trouble.*

O'Reilly is the biggest fucking douche in the world.

*On this note, the guy seems to think he has a lot more power than he actually does. He's always talking about how he's going to stop things and hold people accountable and not to mess with him. What the fuck is he going to do?

Please justify this. You've said this several times in this forum, and besides defending the viewpoint, you have not made a convincing argument. That what Maddow and Olbermann do is just as bad as what Fox does (or that calling Palin a cunt is as bad as calling Obama a terrorist.)

Holy fuck I can't stand Rush. Obvious comment, I know, but the woman in the cube next to mine has it on all morning and I get to hear all of her little giggles to Rush's various "witty" remarks. Oh, and for the afternoon, Sean Hannity. If she fucking asks me who I'm voting for, I'll tell her Aaron Burr or something to save her the satisfaction.

To further illustrate what a waste of flesh this woman is, she seems to download a new cellphone ringer every week. She seems to idolize her dad, who is probably the source of her hollow thoughts. If so, I hope he's dead. She's two years older than me, married, and is already hosting dinner parties where she invites her boss. Jesus shit.

Phew. Anyway, my pundit is Howard Stern. It's really the only thing to counteract the shit she listens to.

I've not made a convincing argument because you either did not understand me or you let your bias trump your reason.

I just find Olbermann to be totally hypocritical in his attacks on O'Reilly. To me, he's just another demagogue. Sure, he's the left's new media champion, but to me he's just another demagogue.

Maddow isn't as bad, but the "Liberals rule, Republicans and conservatives stink" stuff doesn't fly with me. It may fly with most of the people in this forum, but if I want news... I'd like it non-partisan OR at least show two sides of the argument and then make a decision or let the audience make a decision.

Olbermann's show does nothing of the sort. He presents one side, distorts it, and then brings on a pundit with similar leanings as him, and they conclude that their views are correct. There's always a bad guy, whether it's McCain, GW Bush, or some random fuckup Republican.

It's all hypocritical because they claim they want better politics, but they just commit the same intellectual crimes as those they fight with every night. You might disagree, but two wrongs don't make a right. There's always a right belief... there's always a bad guy. Let's show how the bad guy is wrong. Let's hide the counter-arguments. Let's bring an "expert" to tell us we're right. Oho! We are right! End of segment. World's Worst Persons! Oddballs! Today is blah blah blah day since Mission Accomplished banner day. Two weeks later its a hateful Special Comment!

I don't have a problem with commentators presenting an issue and then commenting on that issue. My problem is that the American people are gullible and they'll believe most things on television. PATRIOT Act going to help us? Sure...

When I was a civics teacher, we were trained to keep it non-partisan or present both view points and allow the student to make their own decision or ask questions. I believe news should be the same.

To be fair, I didn't ask the right question. What Frum was saying (and what you apparently agreed with) was that what Rachel Maddow's snark and sarcasm is the same as (or at least excuses) McPalin supporters chanting "terrorist" and "kill him." Please defend that, if you do agree with it. Or maybe you and your non-bias misunderstood Frum's point.

But seriously, you're kind of presumptuous when you proclaim how above bias you are when accusing me of having bias cloud my judgment. You definitely maintain a conservative perspective/bias/whatever, even if it strays from Republican party partisanship occasionally. So, partisanship and bias are not the same thing, even if they look similar sometimes. Example: Olbermann is partisan for Obama, Maddow is just a hardcore liberal. So as much as you may believe it, you're not convincing me into thinking you're somehow more intellectually honest than some of us more vocal liberals.

Also, you seem to equate presenting both sides as somehow being more honest than presenting THE TRUTH. ElCap recently called it "extreme centrism." I call it a matter of false equivalencies-- Frum's point on Maddow's show being a prime example of that. This is a fundamental flaw in how news gets reported. I don't know what the fix is, but I know allowing O'Reilly and Hannity get away with their shit is not going to help.

Also, the fact that you see O'Reilly and Olbermann as the same kind of demagogue shows that you don't think all that deeply about the level of demagoguery (and the damage it does) from each person. I'll agree KO flirts with serious demagoguery, but to say its the same as Bill-O (who often relishes it) is kind of stupid.

Also Rachel Maddow, in the short time she's been on the air, has agreed with Republicans and conservatives several times even though she's a liberal. And unlike O'Reilly, she is intellectually consistent when she does it. But by all means, call it bias and ignore it. Nevermind that she is often smarter and more thoughtful than almost anyone on cable news.

Just out of curiosity, what do you prefer to read? watch? What passes the Muharulz test?

Not that I missed her, and I know she's no fan of McCain, but where has Ann Coulter been throughout all this? I don't think there's ever been this much crimson chum in the water and she never came to feed...

*shhhhh* We must not speak it's name.

I've probably watched and read more political commentary this election cycle than I ought to, and it's become like a traffic accident for me. Even though I know it's bad, I can't help but watch.

Political pundits are like art critics. They take themselves all too seriously, hoping to be at the leading edge of political discourse, but only end up coming off as insufferable douchebags. And the fact that the Daily Show/Colbert report combo offers more insight into the political happenings *and* the way they're covered is a damning, but well deserved indictment of the sound and fury in the MSM.

....sorry...