For being "puppets" of Barack Obama, MSNBC and the New York Times sure have a funny way of showing it. Both have been beating the Governor Blagojovich story into the ground even going as far as teaming up by interviewing each other on what could actually be in the "secret" documents that are going to be released next week regarding the ongoing investigation.
In fact, several anchors on MSNBC as well as reporters for the Times have said that President Elect Obama is answering questions in a manner similar to President Bush. Whether or not you agree that is true, it is kind of a head scratcher considering what the "all media are agin' us" crowd on the right are saying about both of these news organizations.
Ah, well...best not think about it too much. It's been a hard few weeks for some folks on the right and we all know how they need to have their enemies...even if they are, in no way, real.
12 comments:
why dont you tell us what you think of the blago scandal instead of making fun of people, which requires very little effort.
Don't do it, Mark. You are calling him on his bullshit about the media. Keep it up.
yeah whatever you both do, don't offer up your assesment of a situation, then you may have to debate someone. just keep criticizing everyone else. blk would have probably blamed republicans for that childrens hospital in Illinois being underfunded. Turns out the democrat Blago wanted a $50k donation to release the funds.
No! Please, don’t do it! Don’t respond.
Now, I don’t care if Mark responds or not as this is a topic that has been done to death. But coming from a lefty blog w/ predominantly lefty posters, why is Sara’s such a recurring statement?
If you’re proud of your opinions and want to spread your point of view, isn’t a little explanation occasionally in order? But all too frequently mud is thrown against the wall and when questioned, there’s cries to hush up.
What’s behind the fear Sara? Putting more than a line or 2 together is too taxing for you, (Microsoft Word has a great thesaurus to help w/ the bigger words.) or perhaps an attempt at coherent dialog would reveal things best left in the dark? Nobody is less eloquent than I, but I have no fear of wearing my opinions on my sleeve or a need to hide behind someone else. Besides, this is a blog, you can say something stupid and nobody knows who you are…
Both of you guys crack me up. You whine about how the media are puppets of Obama and then can't understand the simple fact that Mark is correct. A scandal is a scandal and scandals sell which is what the media really all about.
And that has been Mark's point all along. Sorry to burst your bubbles and take away another paranoid, dreamt up enemy.
No doubt, elizabeth. I can't speak for Mark but this post was about how the media are not Obama's puppets. If he wanted to comment on the scandal, he would've put up a post about that.
Dang right none of you want to comment on the scandal. That may make people realize that some of those beloved dems you all voted in may be just as bad if not worse in terms of cronyism than the outgoing administration. None of you have posted anything about any recent issues and Markadelphias point was only about what "the right are saying about both of these news organizations." I didn't know that the faceless entity known as "the right" garners more attention and has more influence than, say, a sitting governor denying funding to childrens hospitals.
Markadelphias points are all over the place anyway. In the Send in the Marines post he told us with that the choice of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, President Elect Obama has a team in place rife with experience and knowledge. But in his open letter to Hillary Clinton in March of 08, he said that she is a monster and she has consistently reminded us what defines her. Don’t put too much faith in his points because they are made out of convenience.
No disrespect intended, supporters of M, but don't fool yourselves into thinking that this blog is about anything other than constituents of a certain portion of society (Obama supporters, liberals, whatever you want to call yourselves) sitting around stroking themselves over how much better they are than other people. This posting of M's has nothing to do with showing that the media are not Obama's puppets...all he did was cherry-pick some specific instances and draw from those some general conclusions in an attempt to make "the other side" look silly. He all but admitted several posts ago that his intent here is to call conservatives on how divisive and intolerant they are, not to mention the fact that he has repeatedly referenced how angry and frustrated the conservative ideology makes him.
Now don't get me wrong. I don't begrudge anybody the opportunity to:
a) sit around and stroke himself or herself. Or,
b) commiserate with a group of people of like ideology.
In no way is this response a criticism of what goes on here at markadelphia.blogspot.com per se. It's simply an observation that what occurs here should in no way be confused with actual analysis of political and societal realities. Which, without attempting to put words into their mouths, I believe was the actual point being made by sw, dave, and rld.
It's not at all a question of "if he wanted to comment on the scandal." Rather, it's the fact that, as noted by sw, he predictably chose not to comment on the scandal and instead chose the "let's skewer Republicans in any fashion possible" route. SW's dig at M was spot-on, and it's the inference that this posting is somehow another blow to the liberal media argument that is laughable.
PL,
My point still stands. Honestly, I don't see much of a scandal here except for Blago. And honestly I don't see the media as liberal at all. They are scumbags, to be sure, but liberal?
Nah, they just like to talk about a bunch of bullshit that no one cares about which, given the huge problems our country faces, why the Blago thing has been covered as much as it has been makes me wonder how Mark is wrong.
what is everyone on or talking about? he DID comment on it -- at LENGTH (this os Obama) i watched him answer 4 questions, taking up 15 minutes on the subject, when the news conference was supposed to be about his new Health Minister -- it was the day before family members arrived, so it must have been last weekend. and he was n o t h i n g LIKE bush. he wasn't folksy or funny or sounbytey or repetitive. he was too the point, extremely honest, i was at the computer it made me stop everything and watch and listen -- i expected him to total crap or sidestep it because even I started believing the media bollocks i was reading on the subject. but he tackled it in a very head-on, down-to-earth, straight-talking, non-showy way, and he was brilliant. honesty always is. whatever side it comes from. so, anyway, maybe i'm late to the convo -- but he did answer questions about this in detail and directly. moving on... joanne
Ah...Our Girl Friday:)Right again, as always.
Love her!
nobody said obama didn't address it anonymous. were talking about markadelphias lack of comments on the scandal itself.
Post a Comment