CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Pundit Discussion Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Pundit Discussion Thread - Page 2

post #51 of 83
I guess.
post #52 of 83
Thread Starter 
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/11/10/pnac-20/

Joe Scarborough drops an F-bomb. Doesn't realize it. Very, very sorry.
post #53 of 83
That was funny, I guess they have no time dealy on morning Joe.

So are they going to get fined?
post #54 of 83
Drudge makes up another story which gets picked up by the AP:

Quote:
The Giants and Eagles played in front of a special guest. Vice President-elect Joe Biden watched the game in a luxury suite with Eagles owner Jeffrey Lurie. Biden was booed when he was showed on the video screen.
The fans were booing a call a ref made. Also, Cole Hamels, the MVP Philadelphia Phillie from the World Series, was sitting next to Biden and there's no way in the world any Philadelphia fan, no matter the sport, would throw a boo in his direction.
post #55 of 83
Drudge made up the story? I thought he linked to the AP one. Big difference.
post #56 of 83
I misread the original story. I guess I'm so used to Drudge being wrong that I assumed when he was mentioned he was the start of it.
post #57 of 83
Next time Keith gives out one of his "Special Comments" just remember, the fuckhead doesn't vote. Seriously. What the fuck?
post #58 of 83
The first time I really ever agreed with Olbermann happened with that Prop 8 comment. It was very well done and he wasn't yelling.
post #59 of 83
What is it with these pundits who don't vote? O'Reilly doesn't either, also citing "objectivity".
post #60 of 83
Great, now I just want to hit both of them with a bat, as opposed to solely O'Reilly.
post #61 of 83
Could just be because my voting rights didn't come from birth, but through a lengthy naturalization process, but I always figured that if you don't vote, you forfeit your right to complain about politics.
post #62 of 83
I don't necessarily agree with them, but I can see the skewed logic in a pundit not voting. It's the last bastion of so-called objectivity they can hold onto, even if they seem like they're in the tank for a candidate or party. I mean, is there any doubt as to who Olbermann or O'Reilly preferred in the '08 election? For me, voting is the one place I can voice my opinion. These guys have a nightly bully pulpit. Voting is the least likely way they can influence an election.
post #63 of 83
Voting is a civic duty, and his excuse is laughable.
post #64 of 83
Out of all the things to be indignant about wrt the KO or BOR, this seems like the least of my concerns.
post #65 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pop Zeus View Post
Out of all the things to be indignant about wrt the KO or BOR, this seems like the least of my concerns.
Actually, I think it's something pretty major. These guys get paid to bitch about the system, yet don't take part in it? That's sort of fucked up. And citing objectivity is hilarious, since neither Olbermann or O'Reilly is anything approaching objective.

I know a lot of people give Olbermann a pass because they agree with his rhetoric (which I do, too, but I also think he's a blowhard and a pompous douche), but this is just weak.
post #66 of 83
They are damned if they do, damned if they don't.
post #67 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drew S. View Post
Actually, I think it's something pretty major. These guys get paid to bitch about the system, yet don't take part in it? That's sort of fucked up. And citing objectivity is hilarious, since neither Olbermann or O'Reilly is anything approaching objective.
Actually, I think they take part in politics in a major way almost every night. Certainly a bigger role than anyone who posts in this forum. But that's just my liberal definition. And if by not voting, it allows KO and BOR a modicum of wiggle room against their opponents who would like to dismiss everything they say out of hand, well I can't exactly blame them for trying to arm themselves against the attacks.
post #68 of 83
Voting is a private affair, like most reporters, they don't have to disclose who they vote for.

It's a pretty stupid thing to do, the dumbest way to claim impartiality.
post #69 of 83
This election, what with the investigation into who funded the Prop 8 campaign, it seems less and less that voting is a private affair. There certainly has to be some accountablity toward how campaigns are funded but a simple search of donating records can show who one favored.
post #70 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pop Zeus View Post
Actually, I think they take part in politics in a major way almost every night. Certainly a bigger role than anyone who posts in this forum. But that's just my liberal definition. And if by not voting, it allows KO and BOR a modicum of wiggle room against their opponents who would like to dismiss everything they say out of hand, well I can't exactly blame them for trying to arm themselves against the attacks.
That's ridiculous, though. Their very careers are predicated on them having opinions. I'm not even sure what kind of criticism you could level at them for voting one way or another, unless you somehow found out that Olbermann cast a vote for McCain or O'Reilly cast a vote for Obama just to have something to bitch about for the next four years - but, as Cap said, voting is private, anyway.

I mean, I think it's kind of silly that reporters are required to pretend that they're actually objective rather than simply acknowledging the effort required in maintaining as much neutrality as possible in reporting (a huge difference to my mind). But these guys? It's a joke. There's no illusion of objectivity to be maintained. The only reasonable explanation is that they're lazy.
post #71 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by slagar View Post
This election, what with the investigation into who funded the Prop 8 campaign, it seems less and less that voting is a private affair. There certainly has to be some accountablity toward how campaigns are funded but a simple search of donating records can show who one favored.
There's a big difference between donating and voting.
post #72 of 83
Sure there is, but there are those who will see someone donating to a campaign as the same as a vote, it's happening already. So the idea that voting being a private affair is tenuous at best.
post #73 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by slagar View Post
Sure there is, but there are those who will see someone donating to a campaign as the same as a vote, it's happening already. So the idea that voting being a private affair is tenuous at best.
Huh?

I don't see how this is relevant, since I'd guess that O'Reilly and Olbermann refrain from donating as well as voting.
post #74 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveB View Post
That's ridiculous, though. Their very careers are predicated on them having opinions. I'm not even sure what kind of criticism you could level at them for voting one way or another, unless you somehow found out that Olbermann cast a vote for McCain or O'Reilly cast a vote for Obama just to have something to bitch about for the next four years - but, as Cap said, voting is private, anyway.

I mean, I think it's kind of silly that reporters are required to pretend that they're actually objective rather than simply acknowledging the effort required in maintaining as much neutrality as possible in reporting (a huge difference to my mind). But these guys? It's a joke. There's no illusion of objectivity to be maintained. The only reasonable explanation is that they're lazy.
All I'm saying is that given their very large bully pulpits, getting pissed off that they don't vote is a bit overreactive. I'm not defending their lack of voting per se, as much as I'm saying that a record of their vote is predominantly a symbolic gesture, and that it doesn't hold the same gravity that it does for us regular folk. Precisely for the reasons stated above.

I'm just reacting to this exaggerated sentiment > "They don't even vote?!? Well that's the last straw! They should shut up permanently!"
post #75 of 83
Cap brought up the point that voting was a private affair as an excuse that anyone can vote without worrying about their objectivity being questioned. I was pointing out how that might not be that case.
post #76 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pop Zeus View Post
All I'm saying is that given their very large bully pulpits, getting pissed off that they don't vote is a bit overreactive. I'm not defending their lack of voting per se, as much as I'm saying that a record of their vote is predominantly a symbolic gesture, and that it doesn't hold the same gravity that it does for us regular folk. Precisely for the reasons stated above.
I'd say that it does, on some level, though. Our government is participatory, thus we're individually responsible for its functioning. You don't get a pass on this responsibility just because you comment on it, especially since you're not required to admit who you voted for or even that you voted.

Quote:
I'm just reacting to this exaggerated sentiment > "They don't even vote?!? Well that's the last straw! They should shut up permanently!"
Well, no - there are other, better reasons for them to shut up. Their refusal to vote speaks more to their personal ethics than their opinions on politics. They're no more or less informed about anything because of the act of voting. They're just lazy and have stupid ideas about what constitutes "objectivity."
post #77 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by slagar View Post
Cap brought up the point that voting was a private affair as an excuse that anyone can vote without worrying about their objectivity being questioned. I was pointing out how that might not be that case.
It's the case if you don't donate. Since we're talking about Olbermann and O'Reilly and their refusal to vote, specifically, I don't think the donation point is that important. You'd agree that, minus donations or public endorsements, one's vote is pretty secret, right?
post #78 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveB View Post
Well, no - there are other, better reasons for them to shut up. Their refusal to vote speaks more to their personal ethics than their opinions on politics. They're no more or less informed about anything because of the act of voting. They're just lazy and have stupid ideas about what constitutes "objectivity."
Huh? I'm sure these people would vote if they weren't on TV everyday. If not, then yeah, they're pretty silly, stupid, etc. But assuming that they aren't voting precisely because of their public positions (which is what they've said publicly, so it's all we can go on), how is that unethical, lazy or whatever else you're claiming?
post #79 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pop Zeus View Post
Huh? I'm sure these people would vote if they weren't on TV everyday. If not, then yeah, they're pretty silly, stupid, etc. But assuming that they aren't voting precisely because of their public positions (which is what they've said publicly, so it's all we can go on), how is that unethical, lazy or whatever else you're claiming?
It's lazy, because they're employing an excuse to not vote. It's a nonsensical excuse at that, and, assuming that neither of these guys is brain-damaged (not a given, I understand), they know it. The act of voting does not reveal one's political allegiance; the ballot submitted is private. But even this is ludicrous, because we know which candidate would get the Olbermann vote and which would get the O'Reilly vote. The reasons they've given don't hold up, thus we can only conclude that they're stupid (again - possible) and actually believe these reasons to be sound, or they have some other reason to not vote - I suggest laziness.

And I've already explained why it's not ethical. In a participatory democracy, it's on us to participate. Participating doesn't mean simply participating in political discussion - this is empty bullshit, more often than not. Participating means putting your vote where your mouth is.
post #80 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveB View Post
It's the case if you don't donate. Since we're talking about Olbermann and O'Reilly and their refusal to vote, specifically, I don't think the donation point is that important. You'd agree that, minus donations or public endorsements, one's vote is pretty secret, right?
Until the "vote by mail" crowd gets their way.

The "not voting because I'm on TV" routine is more understandable, marginally, when you're actually a reporter and not a brazenly partisan pundit. Indeed, this is no new development, it's part of a tradition that goes way back. I heard a story on (I think it was) ON THE MEDIA on NPR about exactly this, years ago.

But for guys like Olbermann and BillO it's just preposterous. You're editorialists. Neutrality is the opposite of why you collect the fat paychecks, don't insult my intelligence with this crap.
post #81 of 83
Keith Olberman in a minute.

I love the guy but damn can he be a drama queen.
post #82 of 83
Yeah, the link is from Page Six, but if true, possibly one of the greatest newstories of the year.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/11252008...ear_140601.htm

Who do we need to pay to make sure her jaw stays wired shut?
post #83 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by HBarr View Post
Yeah, the link is from Page Six, but if true, possibly one of the greatest newstories of the year.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/11252008...ear_140601.htm

Who do we need to pay to make sure her jaw stays wired shut?
Joe Pesci.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Pundit Discussion Thread