Note to partisan hacks: If you’re going to tar someone by calling him/her an appeaser, take the time to learn what appeasement actually means—preferably before going on TV.
[Hat tip: Con Queso]
Categories
Archives
- December 2008 (1)
- November 2008 (14)
- October 2008 (7)
- September 2008 (1)
- August 2008 (7)
- July 2008 (9)
- June 2008 (13)
- May 2008 (19)
- April 2008 (9)
- March 2008 (19)
- February 2008 (14)
- January 2008 (8)
- December 2007 (8)
- November 2007 (15)
- October 2007 (17)
- September 2007 (11)
Poor guy, he must be very ashamed. Chris goes after him like a pitbul. That was painful to watch.
If he does in fact feel shame (hard to know), I sympathize with him. But shame seems to be in short supply in the world of punditry.
It may seem odd, but I’m impressed with Matthews’ relentlessness (even if he too was unsure as to the facts surrounding the Munich talks–were they in 1938 or 1939, Chris?).
In journalism, there is an insidious notion that there isn’t right or wrong, but only differing viewpoints. The result is that news organizations, in seeking “balance,” allow people like Kevin to get away with being untruthful, disingenuous and/or just plain ignorant. Matthews didn’t let him do that, and clearly the guy was caught off guard at the deviation from standard protocol.
You are right, he probably doesn’t feel too much shame, but he should. But I have to think that he was somehow embarrased by the whole episode.
By the way, what’s the connection between seeking balance and having people on the show who don’t know their facts? Why not just get people who know the facts and can make the arguments, I think there are plenty of them around. At least then you can have an interesting discussion about whatever is on the table.
I think news organizations have developed a preference for balance above all else—even above truth. With this emphasis on balance—and giving equal airtime to opposing views—news organizations project a notion that opposing viewpoints are always equally valid, just different. For a long time the most egregious example of this was in coverage of global climate change, wherein the opinion of the IPCC (a non-partisan and international group of scientists) would be contrasted with the opinion of one crackpot skeptic from a conservative think-tank. Equal coverage implies, absurdly, that the two camps have equally valid arguments and equal claim on the facts.
News outlets that do challenge people to be faithful to the facts are often derided as having a bias, usually of the liberal kind. In an effort to escape that accusation, many journalists have abrogated their responsibility to promote the truth, and in the process, they’ve let a lot of goofballs get away with fudging the facts.
So are you saying that liberals voice truths and know the facts and conservatives voice falsehoods and fudge facts? And thus any attempt to voice a conservative opinion is to speak falsesly and to fudge facts? Is that what you mean?
Nick:
No, that’s not what I meant, but re-reading my comment, I can see how it could be interpreted that way.
Liberals do indeed fudge facts as much as conservatives. One recent example of this is the brouhaha over John McCain’s alleged comment that he’d like to stay in Iraq for 100 years. While I’m no fan of McCain’s approach to foreign policy (too warlike for me), he meant the U.S. may have a future presence in Iraq in much like we currently have in Germany and Korea—where we have small bases that are relics of a much larger occupation. He was unfairly derided as supporting a 100-year war in Iraq, and it seems few news outlets took the time to put his remarks in context.
Unfortunately, those leading the brouhaha were the two democratic front-runners. While we expect such realpolitik distortions from Clinton, it should be an embarassment to Obama and his supporters that he lied, continually, about McCain’s comments. This is the man who is supposed to transcend traditional politics of spin and distortion and here he is, mirabile dictu, doing the very thing he rails against.
Jeb:
I haven’t made up my mind about this issue, and I could have benefited from a balanced discussion. I would have liked to have heard both sides articulate the best case for their positions so that I could have made up my mind myself.
It’s too bad because this, like the zappa debate, could have been and should have been thoughtful, but the media’s goal is to make money; it is not to provide interesting and throughtful discussions about important issues. Again, I would have loved to hear an intelligent discussion of the merits (or non-merits) of claiming that Obama’s policy is like Chamberlain’s policy towards Hitler. There are plenty of conservatives out there who could have answered Chris’s questions, and I would have benefited from a serious discussion of the matter. But rather we got to watch something totaly different, something far better for the ratings, but far worse for us.
You are absolutely right, if you’re going to use the word you should do the research first.