WEDNESDAY, APRIL 11, 2012
Quitting E. J. Dionne: Yesterday afternoon, we did a post about a TV discussion between Lawrence O’Donnell and E. J. Dionne. The lads were pretending to share their views about Teflon and Velcro candidates.
They key word there, of course, is “pretending.” Surely, they don’t believe the silly things they said.
O’Donnell is a manifest fraud. But as a liberal or a progressive, have you been able to quit Dionne? If you missed yesterday’s post, we do recommend it:
Click here.
Except your own incomparable archives contradicts your claim that Dionne remained silent in the face of the bullroar against Gore.
ReplyDeleteBut go ahead and pretend that it doesn't and throw that sweet hay to your cattle.
The best way to make your case would be by example, rather than assertion.
ReplyDeleteLet's see Dionne contradicting the lies about Gore.
I led you to water. Now either drink, or stop whining that you're thirsty.
ReplyDeleteCall your dessicated creek what you want, Anonymous.
DeleteIf you had a quote, any quote, showing Dionne rebutting all the lies about Gore, you'd show it!
You haven't.
Like always.
On your presentation, the case against Somerby on Dionne remains unmade.
Maybe you can find something? A little something? One time Dionne spoke up and said "what so-and-so says about Al Gore is a lie?"
But until then we go on thinking that you, like always, got nothin'.
Keep lowin' on that sweet hay, Swanny. If it weren't for you and a couple of others, Somerby would have no choir at all to preach to.
DeleteI admit, I can't find anything to rebut Somerby.
DeleteTherefore, you are all fools for listening to him.
So now Dionne -- barely a liberal to start out with, more a vanishing centrist by any reasonable standard -- isn't good enough to address "our" concerns, and Krugman fails to meet the Somerby standard and we know what Somerby thinks of MSNBC, notwithstanding the fact (of which he can't be unaware?) that politics in mass-societies IS tribal by nature, that the American voter will always be a "low information" creature, and that taking the "tribe" out of one party and not the other, means a lot of lost elections.
ReplyDeleteBut anyway: among the "liberals" corporate is willing to employ, who does Bob approve of? He hasn't said.
Is he agitating for, say, Glenn Greenwald to replace Dionne at WaPO? Not exactly -- the last memorable Somerby mention of Greenwald was to impugn a Greenwald position Bob didn't like, because Greenwald lives in Brazil.
So in an imperfect world, who's good enough for Bob Somerby -- other than Bob Somerby, even assuming op-ed pages and TVs want to hear about the bad things that were said about Al Gore, with no discussion of what Al Gore actually did when he was in office?
Is that really it, now, Anonymous? "The world's not perfect, so you shut up Bob Somerby, you think you're so great!" Is that, at last, all you've got?
DeleteWhy not find another hobby, Swan? One which doesn't involve other people? Or maybe get a job.
DeleteHow about anonymous troll who hates everything Bob writes and feels compelled to endlessly alert us to that fact, quits torturing itself and goes to find another bridge to lurk under? Or maybe get a job?
DeleteSorry, swan. I know how you love to turn things from a debate you can't win into one you think you can. But I've read the post several times that you are responding to and still can't find any call for Somerby to shut up.
DeleteBob Somerby has a perfect right under the First Amendment to write any drivel he wants to on his own blog.
And that same First Amendment also gives others the right to say he's full of shit.
I know how much you depend on the Book of Bob to do the heavy thinking for you. But you are really not very good at making things up just so you can play "gotcha."
Turn the debate?
DeleteThe one about whether E.J. Dionne did or did not rebut, refute, call out the liars who lied many lies about Al Gore?
No, of course. You would *never* try to turn that debate into a debate about the merits of Al Gore as a politician, or the qualification of E.J. Dionne as a legitimate "liberal," or whether readers here are "cows."
No, perish the thought. You would never stoop so low. Who could think so?
You're changing the subject again, Swanee. Remember, Bob wants us to "quit" E.J. Dionne, because of Dionne's coverage, or lack thereof, now and then, of Al Gore.
Delete"Quit" is a big notion. So, rather than considering who Dionne is, and the kind of coverage Gore got and should have gotten, and who Dionne is and isn't as a journalist, we simply must take Bob's admonition and "quit" E.J. Dionne, based on the failings Bob perceives in his coverage of Al Gore.
That may suffice for you, but it won't for everyone.
"the failings Bob perceives" as if they weren't really there. You're the funny man. No one could invent you.
DeleteEarlier, Anonymous, you claimed you could could show that Somerby was just plain wrong about E.J. Dionne. But you gave up on that. Because you were wrong.
Unhumbled though, for you now it all revolves around pretending that Somerby has issued an edict and that he has "followers" who, you insist, would stupidly follow such an order.
Given the presentation by Somerby, anyone with reason hardly imagines Somerby has simply insisted by decree that they must quit reading Dionne. Indeed, it's obvious Somerby himself has not quit attending to Dionne!
You pretend to misunderstand a rhetorical device. Somerby says we can all see O'Donnell is a broken hack, but will we allow ourselves to say the same about Dionne? Can we "quit" him?
So the question is: What is the merit of Somerby's case against Dionne?
Discussing the merits of the "case against E.J. Dionne" is beyond you (actually, you simply lost the argument, in yesterdays thread), so you pretend it's all about sheep following their herder.
Understandable, because you got nothing. Once again.
I hate to break it to you, Swanee, but there's more than on "Anonymous" here -- it's not somebody's first or last name, and you're arguing with more than one person. There are even a few right-wing Anonymi pretending to be liberals outraged by the imaginary liberal media (sound familiar?). It's a non-partisan designation.
DeleteThe good news is, "Swan" could only be one person -- the guy who thinks that "you ain't got nutting" and variations of the same is a devastating debating blow, and who never fails to trot it out, in the absence of a cogent argument.
Anon 12:13.
DeleteIt is ardently hoped your advice will be followed.
And I hope the evil twin Anon will let the first two billy goats pass unmolested and accost the third.
I am in fact twenty-seven different people who are all smarter than you!
DeleteWatch, while I prove it:
Later, sheep!
"among the "liberals" corporate is willing to employ, who does Bob approve of? He hasn't said."
ReplyDeleteMost likely none of them. True liberals don't get hired by corporate media (except maybe MSNBC, the designated ghetto for pseudo-liberals on teevee). They are too shrill and divisive and might offend someone.
Urbane, witty but inoffensive "vanishing centrists" like Dionne are probably as close as we'll ever see to an actual liberal pundit on corporate media.
And, even if we accept your analysis (we don't), it doesn't follow that they (Dionne and his ilk) shouldn't be criticized.
DeleteWhat I wonder is, would Bob approve of an *actual* liberal -- or, god forbid, a "leftist"?
DeleteBased on his admiration for Al Gore, that's not at all clear.
"And, even if we accept your analysis (we don't), it doesn't follow that they (Dionne and his ilk) shouldn't be criticized."
DeleteNot sure who the royal "we" refers to, but does it also follow that you subject to the WSJ's and National Review's editorial page's, and the thousands of flunkies on right-wing think-tank payrolls, to the same scrutiny?
Yeah, I have no problem Bob covering the NYT, the WaPo, MSNBC, and, in the past, whoever carries national debates -- but unless he ALSO criticizes everyone else that I hate, his efforts are illegitimate!!
DeleteNo, Anonymous 1:05. Bob's focus here is his his own business.
DeleteWhat I said was, do YOU subject the right-wing to the same scrutiny and take the same interest in it?
Because, unless you also criticize the right-wing, you have no right to approve of the criticism Somerby does!
DeleteI'm not just time-wasting and spinning around in circles, I'm NOT!!!
1:15, I'll take issue with just one point. People have the right to hold any opinion they want, no matter how unfounded or inconsistent.
DeleteBut . . . I believe your point might be, and I would totally agree, is this: Don't hold yourself out as a "true liberal" -- and in fact, the ONLY "true liberal" -- when your blog is pretty much indistinguishable from NewsMax, Matt Drudge and hundreds of other wingnut blogs and Websites obsessed with exposing "liberal bias" in the media.
Anon 1:15
Delete"Because, unless you also criticize the right-wing, you have no right to approve of the criticism Somerby does!"
Ah, no, you misread me, sir. By all means, restrict your scrutiny to one side, if that's you're tribal interest. But, in that case, you're everything Mr. Somerby claims to despise, and we're listening to nothing but your prejudices, which won't be of great interest.
Well, except for talking about the Buffet Rule. And how much health care costs in other nations. And reporting on how the media treats test scores in schools. And constantly portraying Fox News as a lie-filled propaganda machine. And bemoaning the Bush presidency. Yeah, except for that, yeah.
DeleteLast post was a response to:
Delete"But . . . I believe your point might be, and I would totally agree, is this: Don't hold yourself out as a "true liberal" -- and in fact, the ONLY "true liberal" -- when your blog is pretty much indistinguishable from NewsMax, Matt Drudge and hundreds of other wingnut blogs and Websites obsessed with exposing "liberal bias" in the media."
I hope you're not the Anon that keeps talking about false equivalencies.
DeleteExactly, 1:40. I agree 100 percent, and have even noted how indistinguishable Somerby has gotten from scores of wingnut blogs whining about liberal media bias.
DeleteWhen was the last time you read "[the] GOP candidates have advanced a set of ludicrous tax proposals" on a wingnut blog? I don't think you know what indistinguishable means.
Delete"...with no discussion of what Al Gore actually did when he was in office?"
ReplyDeleteWoah, he was in office? When? I missed out on the Gore Administration? What a relief...the Bush Administration was all a horrible, horrible dream...
You obviously missed out on Gore's terms in the House, Senate and as vice president. Unless I'm mistaken, those are indeed offices.
DeleteAnd "what Al Gore actually did when he was in office" is very relevant to this discussion!
DeleteBecause the point is: Al Gore did some things I disapprove of, therefore no one should be chastised for lying about him, or standing by while others lied about him.
No, I think he's just another nitpicking literalist. So he's in good company here.
Delete"Because the point is: Al Gore did some things I disapprove of, therefore no one should be chastised for lying about him, or standing by while others lied about him."
DeleteYou're right: the matter of what kind of politician Al Gore actually was is irrelevant to the discussion of Al Gore and press treatment of Al Gore.
Glad we finally cleared that up.
Delete
Settled.
DeleteYou can prove E.J. Dionne rebutted lies about Al Gore by saying Al Gore is a bad man.
Anyone who can't follow the logic is a cow.
Sorry, but my comment at 12:50 was restricted merely to the fact that Al Gore did indeed hold office.
ReplyDeleteNow if other folks want to stretch that to mean something else, well go right ahead. Somerby will be proud of you.