Liked? Who cares if it was liked? A rally was held to point out the fear and political craze. Mr. Stewart fell very short in his goal. That is not an opinion…it’s a fact. A fact not lost on members of the MSNBC prime-time line up or Bill Maher.
But I want to point out some things that were missed…he proved the old premise of a “liberal”. It’s a disease that permeates many on the left, the desire to play it down the middle. He didn’t look at the truth in his criticism, he just looked to criticized. A flawed process, where he placed what is wrong with the right and applied to the left, which he even went on MSNBC to defend by nitpicking. So now he has placed his own peers in a enviable position. His peers must now criticize the “critic”, they must call out his blatant hypocrisy. He wanted it both ways; he tried to be independent and critical. He played fair and lost balance. His comparisons could only be achieved by him pressing a thumb on the scale he was using to compare. Teabagger is not in the realm of Dr. Tiller the baby killer.
The phrase false equivalence has been bounced around. I say it’s improper in this case…
Stewart flat out lied!
If he is going to have a rally to restore sanity he needs to start with his own.
For those that don’t know or don’t want to admit it, Stewart exposed the left vs. right pundit issue with Crossfire and killed the show. Don’t believe me, fine.
Prove me wrong…I was watching that show for the entire year prior to Stewart’s appearance. Ratings didn’t kill the show, Stewart (Mr. I'm not in the game) killed it by using a critical analysis of the show.
His best defense of lumping MSNBC with FOX is the left vs. right premise. Really?
Really? MSNBC is for the left? reporting the facts of what is wrong with the government is left. Lying at every turn in order to serve an agenda is the right? That’s the lie you made.
If there is amplification on MSNBC for the left…why has the left not heard it? If there is an apples and oranges comparison in his “analysis” how can one produce facts and the other be nutjobs? That’s a fair analysis? That’s how you come to the conclusion that they are the same? MSNBC is hurting America? Really, facts that lean to the left hurt America? Calling people that vote against their own financial interest by voting for their religious and racist interest teabaggers is hurting America? I just wonder would he have the balls to tell Gore Vidal that mocking or exposing the ridiculous is hurting America?
I would imagine that its my fault. I expected sanity restoration, I expected Stewart to say enough of the race bashing, internet bullying, media manipulation, astroturf deception, political side-stepping, and military expansion.
Alas, I got a bottleneck example to describe how we all get together to get things done. Maybe he needs to point out the insanity that got the myriads of bottlenecks in our country in the first place.
I just have one question left…would Jon Stewart tell this person who wrote the following that she is hurting America when addressing a lying, manipulative teabagger? Or just telling the truth…something Stewart was delinquent in doing by playing it down the middle:
“This is the point at which you show the exact dismissiveness I'm talking about. Note that I said I routinely CHECK the facts. It's not on my impression of his character or my inclination toward his views that I base my assertion that he gets his facts right. It's on quite a lot of experience at checking those facts and finding that they're right.
But you ignored that part so that you could do exactly what I said was the problem in the first place--be dismissive of something you really have no reason to dismiss.
If you said Hannity was a credible source, yes, that would be laughable, because he is often wrong. If you said, in contrast, that William F. Buckley was a credible source, you would not be ridiculous.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. You WANT Olbermann to be "the liberal Hannity"--and there are liberals just like Hannity, O'Reilly, and Limbaugh. But Olbermann isn't one. Is he biased? Even mean sometimes? You bet. But he gets his FACTS right and cites his SOURCES.
And that, my friend, makes all the difference. It's the difference between me actually being laughable or "worshiping" someone and me getting off my ass and doing my homework and drawing a conclusion about a source based on actual evidence--and the difference between us is that I read all of what you said and didn't just dismiss part of it.
The pumps, alas, are no more. One is missing.
See? All of it--even the part that some might say trivializes me and others might call an olive branch.
Here is one of those comments pointing out an error that you like to ignore: I said that you like to dismiss Olbermann, for instance, as being not credible because of his bias; I explained that it is possible to be biased AND accurate; I told you I'd checked his accuracy repeatedly and also checked his sources; and you came back with a comment that said EXACTLY what I said you always say, without evaluating the new evidence I'd provided or paying attention to anything I said after the part that you COULD ridicule if you took it out of context. In other words, you attempted to defeat my argument by committing the same error that that argument said you routinely commit.
How about this? YOU watch Olbermann talking about, say, the voting record of an elected official and then check that voting record. Do that over and over again. Come back with your results. If you catch him making the kinds of "mistakes" O'Reilly and Hannity do or outright lying like Limbaugh a statistically significant percentage of the time, you'll have a case to make. Until then, you can either accept that I believe him to be credible on FACTS because I CHECKED them--or you can call me a liar or suggest that I'm simply not competent to check things like how an elected official voted on something.
But you can't go "your argument is wrong because I say it's wrong" and expect any respect.”
No comments:
Post a Comment