On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 1:26 AM, PGage <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 12:45 AM, Kevin M. <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 11:45 PM, Wesley McGee <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> If Keith wasn't politically partisan, when Obama capitulated and >> Americans ended up with a health care bill that helped nobody and >> omitted a public option, why wasn't Keith calling for his immediate >> impeachment and removal from office? Why hasn't he accused Obama of >> war crimes the way he accused Bush? > > Huh? > > I must have dropped a stitch somewhere in this thread. How is compromising > on a Health Care Bill the same as violating the US Constitution and UN > Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
How many different times in Bush's eight years did Keith call for his removal from office? That's what you missed. If he set a standard for all politicians and then reacted the same way regardless of who let him down, I could accept that. But here was a situation where Keith openly crusaded for an issue near and dear to him and was let down by a man he supported, but he just shrugged it off. Why wasn't Barack Obama declared The Worst Person In The World? Obama had a majority and the support of the American people; why didn't Keith condemn him when he let the nation down so spectacularly? Because it isn't about ideology -- it is about politics, and that is just crap. > there is no plausible basis for accusing > Obama of a war crime, or committing an impeachable offense based on it. > OTOH, while there were those who liked and disliked Bush's war and torture > policies, there clearly was a plausible basis for accusing him of both war > crimes and impeachable offenses. And Obama's continuation of Bush's wartime agenda (including his expansion into Afghanistan -- and eventual move into Pakistan) doesn't earn him a visit to the Hague? The continued torture and illegal detention of people? The denial of basic freedoms to American citizens? No, it is easier to make lame Sarah Palin jokes. > MSNBC isn't too partisan or political to > be a credible news organization, they are either too neurotic (Keith), too > mainstream (the NBC News hands who slum on MSNBC) or too stupid and shallow > (almost everyone else - except Rachel, who I think for the most part is a > credible journalist). Did you watch the interview? Because she believes she and Stewart are doing the same job. Which means either she thinks Stewart is a journalist (which he isn't) or she doesn't think she is (which she is supposed to be). > Jon Stewart's problem is that he can't acknowledge that Sean Hannity is > trying to be more like Jon Stewart than he is trying to be like Walter > Cronkite. Equating Hannity (or the other clowns at FN) with Keith or Rachel > helps give the the former the journalistic credibility they are not even > really looking for, while it invalidates and marginalizes the latter > unfairly - the equivalent of giving them the death penalty for stealing a > car. Again, I'd say your political views are clouding the issue. You say Rachel Maddow is a credible journalist, though in the interview she cannot distinguish between her job and the satire done on The Daily Show. I would suggest Sean Hannity would not consider himself more akin to Stewart, though that is how you perceive him. Both FoxNews and MSNBC are producing shoddy journalism, albeit using vastly different approaches, targeting vastly different audiences. Until (and please forgive the cliche) both sides take off their partisan blinders, the condition will only get worse. Right now, I agree and have never denied that there are differences between FoxNews and MSNBC, but that gap is closing rapidly. -- Kevin M. (RPCV) -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
