Rachel Maddow’s a real piece of work!

SATURDAY, JANUARY 18, 2014

The silly dissembling rolls on: Rachel Maddow’s a real piece of work.

We don’t mean that as a compliment.

Her ridiculous clowning on TV never seems to stop. Based on appearances, she dissembles in much the way chimpanzees breathe—without giving the process a thought.

Consider something she said last night in her dramatic opening segment concerning the Fort Lee mess. As usual, Maddow was helping her viewers see that the other tribe—the tribe to which they don’t belong—is a nest of dimwits and liars.

Quite routinely, Maddow dissembles in order to serve this comfort food to her followers. Here’s how one such feeding got started last night:
MADDOW (1/17/14): Now check this out. November— So after the shutdown, after the election, right? This is when the press was pushing really hard to figure out what had happened with the shutdown. The legislature was starting to sniff around, to try to figure out what happened with the shutdown.

But at this time in late November, Governor Chris Christie was still mocking this story, telling everybody it was nothing. In late November, Bill Baroni testified to the legislature about what happened on that bridge. And he appears to have not told the truth in that testimony, really, at all, really egregiously.
Maddow had uncovered more lying! According to Maddow, Baroni’s failure to tell the truth in this instance was “really egregious.”

We liberals tune to this TV show for these comforting morality plays. Here’s the example Maddow gave as last night’s bullshit continued:
MADDOW (continuing directly) In late November, Bill Baroni testified to the legislature about what happened on that bridge. And he appears to have not told the truth in that testimony, really, at all, really egregiously.

For example:

BARONI (videotape): At all times during the week of the study, the Port Authority Police Department monitored traffic on the George Washington Bridge. They were alert for any emergency vehicles in the area and prepared to further alter traffic patterns—excuse me—in the event of an emergency.

MADDOW: That is not true...
Please understand—in her lengthy opening segment, this is the only example Maddow gave of Baroni “appearing to have not told the truth in that testimony, really, at all, really egregiously.” At any rate:

“That is not true,” Maddow said, after playing that short piece of tape. She went on to say that Baroni’s statement “was not true, and he knew that it was not true.” (For fuller text, see below.)

For the record, Baroni testified at substantial length that day. The transcript goes on for 77 pages. That one short piece was tape was drawn from his opening statement.

In the course of the questioning which followed that statement, a great deal of skepticism was directed at Baroni. But no one said a word about the brief, rather meaningless statement Maddow aired last night.

Maddow seemed to present that short passage as the most “egregious” statement Baroni made that day. No one on the highly skeptical legislative panel said a word about it.

In what way was that statement not true, “really egregiously?” As Maddow continued her clownish performance, she pretended to explain:
BARONI (videotape): At all times during the week of the study, the Port Authority Police Department monitored traffic on the George Washington Bridge. They were alert for any emergency vehicles in the area and prepared to further alter traffic patterns—excuse me—in the event of an emergency.

MADDOW: That is not true. Emergency vehicles had a ton of trouble, actually, because of the bridge lane shutdown...
Here's our question:

In that one short cherry-picked passage, where did Baroni say that emergency vehicles didn’t have trouble because of the lane closings?

In that short part of his opening statement, a passage with which no one found fault, Baroni clearly said that the Port Authority Police Department “monitored traffic on the bridge” during the week of lane closings. He said the PAPD were “prepared to further alter traffic patterns in the event of an emergency.”

We’ll take a wild guess. Presumably, the Port Authority Police Department “monitors traffic on the bridge” every single day of the year. Presumably, they were “prepared to further alter traffic patterns in the event of an emergency.”

Out of 77 pages of testimony, that one brief cherry-picked passage was basically tapioca. For the record, emergency vehicles did have trouble because of the backup from the lane closings, or so it has been widely reported. But that didn’t occur “on the bridge,” it occurred in the streets of Fort Lee.

Was the Port Authority Police Department “alert for any emergency vehicles in the area?” Were they “prepared to further alter traffic patterns in the event of an emergency?”

We will assume they were, since this would be an obvious part of police work on any occasion. That doesn’t tell us what the PAPD’s authority was over backups in the streets of Fort Lee. Nor did any member of this unfriendly legislative panel waste even one breath of air on this short, rather meaningless part of Baroni’s opening statement.

In that statement, was Baroni attempting to deny the idea that traffic backups occurred in Fort Lee? That would have been a ludicrous claim, and no one on the skeptical panel seemed to think he had made it.

In part, that may be because of what Baroni said immediately after the cherry-picked passage. As he continued his opening statement, Baroni apologized for the way the Port Authority had failed to communicate its plan to the Fort Lee police:
BARONI (11/25/13): At all times during the week of the study, the Port Authority Police Department monitored traffic on the George Washington Bridge. They were alert for any emergency vehicles in the area and prepared to further alter traffic patterns—excuse me—in the event of an emergency.

While the impact of the Fort Lee lanes on eastbound traffic of the George Washington Bridge is a critically important issue that deserves review and analysis, the Port Authority recognizes the need to conduct that review in a more open and transparent manner. The Port Authority’s ability to fulfill its mission of meeting the region’s transportation infrastructure needs depends on the close cooperation of agency leadership internally, and with our community stakeholders externally.

In this instance, the Port Authority did not provide timely notice of the lane closure to the Fort Lee Police Department, nor secure the complete buy-in from the entire agency before proceeding. These communications breakdowns are not consistent with the Port Authority’s commitment to transparency, and we must—and we will—do better.

[...]

The Port Authority has learned a valuable lesson from the events of September 2013. We will do everything in our power to be more open, inclusive, and transparent as we go forward.

Mr. Chairman, I know the real reason for my appearance here. I’m here to answer your questions.
Can we talk? At no time in the course of this hearing did Baroni ever deny that traffic backups occurred in Fort Lee. Nor did anyone ever ask Baroni about the backups.

There is no sign that anyone thought Baroni had made such a denial. The questioning went in other directions, with Baroni frequently repeating his apology for the failure to notify the Fort Lee police and mayor.

Let’s return to Maddow’s method on last night’s program, a method which is sadly routine on her TV program:

Expressing her outrage at Baroni’s dishonesty, Maddow pulled one little passage out of 77 pages of testimony. But uh-oh! In that largely meaningless passage, Baroni didn’t deny the obvious fact that backups occurred in Fort Lee.

Nor did he make any such statement at some other point in his testimony. Beyond that, no one showed any sign of thinking he’d made such a claim.

Sorry, Charlies! Whatever else he said and did, Baroni didn’t deny the fact that traffic backups occurred. But seven weeks later, along came Our Own Dissembler, with her extremely familiar tribal sleight of hand.

Go ahead—read the full 77 pages of testimony!
Try to find a place where Baroni demies the fact that “emergency vehicles had a ton of trouble because of the bridge lane shutdown.”

Try to find a single place where Baroni is even asked about the backups. Try to find a single legislator who seems to think Baroni said that no backups occurred.

For ourselves, we located those 77 pages this morning because of last night’s TV show. We were surprised by what we found—although we didn’t find Baroni denying that backups occurred.

Here’s what we did find:

We found Baroni making a tedious presentation about a traffic study he said Wildstein and others had conducted. We found him making detailed claims about what the study had found.

We found members of the legislature challenging the wisdom of the idea that one or more access lane from Fort Lee should perhaps be closed. But we found no one claiming that Baroni had denied the fact that traffic backups occurred.

Most surprisingly, we found no one who seemed to doubt that some sort of “study” occurred.

Given the way this matter has been reported, we found that transcript surprising. It’s almost as striking as Maddow’s latest gong-show, the one she presented last night.

Maddow does this sort of thing quite routinely. Last night, here’s how the gong-show went down:

She pulled a short, rather meaningless passage out of 77 pages of testimony. She pretended that passage makes a claim which it doesn’t seem to make—a claim which no one on the panel seemed to think it made.

Whatever else he did that day, Bill Baroni didn’t deny the obvious fact that traffic backups had occurred. Nor did anyone seem to think that he had made such a claim.

Seven weeks later, along came the chimp; we liberals were handed a pleasing story. This pleasing story wasn’t true—but when has that ever stopped Maddow?

Coming: Sadly, much more

Maddow’s fuller statement: Sorry, Charlies! Whatever else he did that day, Bill Baroni didn’t deny the fact that traffic backups occurred.

In that short, cherry-picked passage, he didn’t say that. No one on the skeptical panel seemed to think he had.

Rachel was pretending again, as she routinely does. Below, you see her fuller presentation.

Assuming minimal competence, what follows looks a bit like lying. As always, you have to watch the tape to appreciate the histrionics through which we liberals get entertained by this millionaire clown every night:
MADDOW (1/17/14): Now check this out. November— So after the shutdown, after the election, right? This is when the press was pushing really hard to figure out what had happened with the shutdown. The legislature was starting to sniff around, to try to figure out what happened with the shutdown.

But at this time in late November, Governor Chris Christie was still mocking this story, telling everybody it was nothing. In late November, Bill Baroni testified to the legislature about what happened on that bridge. And he appears to have not told the truth in that testimony, really, at all, really egregiously.

For example:

BARONI (videotape): At all times during the week of the study, the Port Authority Police Department monitored traffic on the George Washington Bridge. They were alert for any emergency vehicles in the area and prepared to further alter traffic patterns—excuse me—in the event of an emergency.

MADDOW: That is not true. Emergency vehicles had a ton of trouble, actually, because of the bridge lane shutdown.

We know that because of the EMS chief in Fort Lee, writing to the mayor in that town, during the traffic jam, on the second day of that traffic jam, on Tuesday of that week, writing to the mayor, quote, "This new traffic pattern is causing unnecessary delays for emergency services. Paramedics were delayed due to heavy traffic, in an accident where four people were injured and had to be transferred to local hospitals." The EMS chief told the mayor the response time was delayed. Some of the EMS responders “had to jump the curb because of the traffic in order to get to this.”

We know from contemporaneous reports that emergency vehicles were delayed because of what they did to that bridge and what they did to Fort Lee. And no one further altered the traffic patterns in order to help that out because they recognized an emergency was happening. That didn’t happen.

We also know that when Bill Baroni told the legislature that that happened, when Bill Baroni told the legislature that untrue thing, he knew when he said it that it wasn’t true. Bill Baroni has been notified the first day of the shutdown that Fort Lee police and medical responders were already having difficulty responding to emergencies because of the traffic.

That e-mail was sent to Bill Baroni, so he knew. We also know Mr. Baroni was sent a letter from the mayor of Fort Lee on Thursday during the shutdown, telling him, quote, "Our emergency service vehicles are suffering tremendous response time delays."

We also know Mr. Baroni received phone messages from Fort Lee’s mayor during the shutdown, specifically about emergency public safety matters, right, messages to which Bill Baroni did not respond, even though we know he got them.

So when Bill Baroni testified to the legislature that day in late November, and he said, the Port Authority took care of it, the Port Authority, at all times, we were monitoring the situation, to make sure no emergency vehicles were having any trouble, we stood ready to change any traffic patterns as need be if emergency vehicles were having any problems. When he said that to the legislature in late November, it was not true and he knew that it was not true.

And so yeah, Bill Baroni was one of the first people who had to resign in this scandal and now he’s been subpoenaed and he’s been told to hand over his cell phone and all the rest. Yes! That’s what happened to Bill Baroni.

But, but—Grrrrr! Look at this...
After growling in feigned frustration, our clown continued from there.

That presentation is basically bullshit. It’s Maddow’s stock in trade.

81 comments:

  1. Gee, Bob. I can't find in those 77 pages where Baroni says that the Port Authority police actually DID anything to alleviate the "tons of trouble" there. You know. Like Baroni said they were poised and ready to do.

    In fact, I also can't read anywhere that anybody alerted those folks in Fort Lee ahead of time that they were about to do a "traffice study" that could impact traffic in general and emergency vehicles in particular.

    Nor can I find anything in those 77 pages to explain why nobody from the Port Authority -- poised and ready to make sure emergency services were not impacted -- bothered to return the phone calls from Fort Lee officials from Day One of this fiasco to explain why traffic in their town was bolloxed up, AFTER the "study" began.

    Can you help me here?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. An "emergency" is something like a terrorist attack or major snowstorm or something requiring evacuation of people or an influx of emergency vehicles (major fire requiring response from multiple sites). It is not a single car crash or someone having a heart attack. These happen all the time and there is no rerouting of traffic lanes, even without traffic studies.

      Given the way accidents tie up traffic in LA, I suspect the accident described above would have tied up traffic and delayed EMS responders in its own right.

      When people are maintaining radio silence, it does matter whether that was imposed before of after complaints about the study, because companies (and I assume other types of organizations) do not want employees making statements that will compromise them in a later investigation. They especially don't want people speaking to the press, apologizing for things in ways that might admit liability, and so on. They channel all communications through trained professionals whenever they think there is the slightest chance of embarrassment. I don't know whether the radio silence email came with recognition that there was a "situation" arising or before hand as part of a plot to keep people uninformed about the traffic study. But this aspect does make sense to me and could occur whether the study was done in revenge or was innocent but incompetent.

      Delete
    2. Congratualtions. You have just surpassed our host himself for the stupidest thing ever written on this blog.

      But I can't decide which of the points you struggle to make is dumber. That the only real "emergencies" are a snowstorm or a terrorist attack, or that the refusal of EVERY Port Authority official to even return the multiple phone calls they were getting from Fort Lee could still be an innocent and quite understandable way to avoid "embarrassment" or "liability."

      Delete
  2. "millionaire clown"

    Live with it, loser.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The widdle pwogwessive had his feelings hurt and cries class envy!

      Delete
  3. blogger is skewered by Baroni himself:

    "BARONI (videotape): At all times during the week of the study, the Port Authority Police Department monitored traffic on the George Washington Bridge. They were alert for any emergency vehicles in the area and prepared to further alter traffic patterns—excuse me—in the event of an emergency."

    EMERGENCY VEHICLES IN THE AREA.

    In the fricking AREA blogger.

    Blogger is telling HIS tribe of 3 or 4 admirers that the Port Authority watches the bridge with pure tunnel vision and that what happened in Fort Lee is outside their purview. That is very likely true of areas of Fort Lee far away from the bridge.

    But the Western end of the bridge IS IN FORT LEE - the Fort Lee access lanes feed directly into the toll booths and it is impossible for them not have noticed the back up flowing back on to Fort Lee proper - most likely a local road running perpendicular to I95/I80, perhaps a hundred yards from the toll booths.

    His head is going to explode unless he stops this and acknowledges his Maddow-hatred caused him to blunder big time.

    The score is Maddow 100 blogger 0 on the bridge thingy. Cut your losses and move on blogger- black kids, Zimmerman, the war on Gore are all waiting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. outcast...underclass...livinfast. . .January 18, 2014 at 1:10 PM

      "His head is going to explode unless he stops this and acknowledges his Maddow-hatred caused him to blunder big time."

      >>> i doubt its hatred. my guess is its more an indication that shes hitting a right wing nerve and somerby is just attack dogging per his instructions.

      Delete
    2. In the area of the bridge, not in Ft. Lee. Baroni's area of responsibility is the bridge because he is with the Port Authority, not the city of Ft. Lee. That is clear from the context.

      Delete
    3. Except for one small niggling detail.

      Baroni did not say, 'in the area of the bridge".

      But go ahead and put words he never said in his mouth. It's the only grease you got to fit it into Bob's narrative about Maddow.

      Which is what this truly is all about. It's not about the bridge. It's not about Christie. It's about Capt. Ahab pursuing his Moby Dick.

      Don't believe me? Dig into the "incomparable archives" and see how many times he has nitpicked, distorted, and even lied about what Maddow has said to further his "narrative."

      This is only the latest chapter.

      Delete
    4. Baroni is head of the Port Authority. The context is implied.

      Delete
    5. Gee. One of us has Baroni's actual words. The other has only what he "implied."

      Well, sorry fella. He said what he said. He didn't "imply" instead, you "infer" what he really meant (which neatly fits Bob's narrative) by putting unspoken words in his mouth.

      Delete
  4. BARONI (11/25/13): At all times during the week of the study,


    That's the fucking point, Somerby, there was no "study". His entire testimony about a mythical "study" was bogus, no good, a lie, a cover story, a transparent fraud that was categorically refuted by Port Authority Executive Director Patrick Foye.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. outcast...underclass...livinfast. . .January 18, 2014 at 1:04 PM

      "Port Authority head Patrick Foye stands tall in New Jersey bridge scandal"

      http://www.irishcentral.com/news/irishvoice/Port-Authority-head-Patrick-Foye-stands-tall-in-New-Jersey-Bridge-scandal.html#ixzz2qm4gZfAV

      Delete
    2. I wonder how it feels to be the only person on Planet Earth who has been paying any attention at all to this story who still thinks that there was a "study" going on there.

      I guess we must await for word from our intrepid blogger about that.

      Delete
    3. I think many people do not understand what it means to keep an open mind about an issue. The only way there appears to be no credible study is if you assume wrongdoing. I understand that lots of people don't like Christie, but you do need to already dislike him and his staff in order to conclude that it is obvious that lies are being told, that the study was not real, etc. Otherwise there is plenty of room for doubt. Many of us are waiting for the investigation before drawing conclusions about what happened.

      Delete
    4. Chris Christie himself is no longer defending this as a traffic study.

      But Bob is, so that means that Chris Christie must no longer have an "open mind."

      But forget the e-mail from Patrick Foye. Forget the e-mails between Bridget Kelly and David Wildstein. Forget the fact that Port Authority professions have testified that Wildstein told them to keep it all hush-hush.

      In fact, forget everything you have read, seen or heard about this, and only read Somerby if you want to keep "an open mind" and pretend that still could have been done out of motives that were as pure as the driven snow.

      Delete
    5. Only by reading interpreting these emails and quotes in the light of your preferred scenario can you claim that they unambiguously implicate Christie and his staff. Somerby doesn't think people should jump to conclusions -- or be pushed to conclusions by liberal media in order to gin up the left equivalent of a Benghazi. Others are not so picky about how they score points.

      Delete
    6. Brilliant piece of satire and snark, 3:38. I commend you for ridiculing Somerby so well.

      Delete
  5. outcast...underclass...livinfast. . .January 18, 2014 at 1:00 PM

    "Rachel Maddow revealed to earn $7m a year edging out Megyn Kelly at $6m - and Matt Lauer rakes in $25m."

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2398553/Rachel-Maddow-revealed-earn-7m-year-edging-Megyn-Kelly-6m--Matt-Lauer-rakes-25m.html

    ReplyDelete
  6. Point of order:

    Just because she MAKES a million, doesn't mean that she HAS a million.

    Gotcha! blogger ("its possible, but we have no way of knowing").

    ReplyDelete
  7. So after reading pages of Baroni testimony, where does Somerby find "bullshit"? Only here:

    MADDOW: So when Bill Baroni testified to the legislature that day in late November, and he said, the Port Authority took care of it, the Port Authority, at all times, we were monitoring the situation, to make sure no emergency vehicles were having any trouble, we stood ready to change any traffic patterns as need be if emergency vehicles were having any problems. When he said that to the legislature in late November, it was not true and he knew that it was not true.

    ReplyDelete
  8. It is interesting that the troll distorts the truth of Somerby's statements in the same manner as Maddow distorts Baroni's testimony.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is interesting that anyone would think that any of the crap Bob just wrote is defensible in any meaningful definition of that world.

      But Bob is right about one thing. He's been calling folks like you "rubes" and "fools" for years.

      Delete
    2. hmmmm, that increases the likelihood that Bob is right when he calls you (and yours) a fool and a rube for your faith in Maddow's accuracy, her tendentiousness notwithstanding.

      Delete
    3. Right. HER tendentiousness is the issue here.

      Speck, meet beam.

      Delete
  9. If this actually had been a traffic study (extremely unlikely in view of the emails and other evidence) it could have been invalidated by advance warning of the general public, since they would then have used alternate entrances to the bridge (further back on 80 or 95) and changed the traffic pattern. But law enforcement and emergency services should have been warned.
    I'm willing to accept Bob's claim that Maddow exaggerates and dwells on trivialities and is not always perfectly accurate. Has anybody noticed other cable newspeople doing this? If so, maybe we could just say it's a failing of cable news in general and not waste a lot of time and words on excruciating detail about particular news personalities, at least when the distortions are of little or no importance themselves.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, did you hear about the secret study conducted by mid-level managers at Johns Hopkins Hospital where they went around the hospital replacing medication with placebos on a bunch of cancer patients. They didn't want to tell anyone, especially the doctors, nurses and patients because it would have ruined their study. Happens all the time.

      Delete
    2. "Based on appearances, she [Maddow] dissembles in much the way chimpanzees breathe --- without giving the process a thought." Why the chimpanzee comparison? I presume the author himself breathes without an undue amount of thought.

      Delete
    3. I think to do this would miss the main point Somerby has been trying to make -- that we are permitting liberal media to become propagandistic in the same way that conservative media is. There are always errors in reporting, but we expect that journalists will attempt to conform to standards for their profession. When they abandon that attempt and instead try to lead viewers to accept a particular point of view, by distorting the content of what they report, in service to an agenda, that is no longer human fallibility but it is a distortion of the purpose the press is supposed to serve in a democracy. It undermines the balance of power by depriving the public of information needed to understand and put pressure on elected officials. So, I think we do need to focus on people like Maddow (even though she is just one example) and be critical of the job done by liberal media. If the examples of distortions concern trivialities sometimes, but larger point is not at all trivial, in my opinion.

      I am a bit concerned that the latest troll voice is now calling people names here. The previous troll activity has been somewhat tolerable because they were civil, albeit annoying. The one today is abusive. That is a change for the worse.

      Delete
    4. Oh, grab the smelling salts. "Trolls" are calling people names.

      How ironic!

      Delete
    5. Skeptonomist, may be it's just me, but if I wanted to do a full, serious study of the impact of reducing access at one point, then I would WANT the public to know so that I could measure the impact on the alternate routes/access points and have a full, clear picture.

      Delete
    6. They didn't want to tell anyone, especially the doctors, nurses and patients

      Except this is frequently the method by which studies ARE conducted.

      Delete
    7. Really? Medical studies are frequently conducted by mid-level managers with no medical training? Show me.

      Delete
  10. Somerby follows the distortions that are of little or no importance so we don't have to.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Maddow is clearly dishonest in the segment described above. If you don't care about that, what is wrong with you? Do you really think it is OK for journalists to be dishonest with their audiences? Can you trust anything she might say when she distorts things, as described above? This matters. If it doesn't, you might as well spend your TV time watching cartoons.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Re "in the area": "Listen up, Angels. This here is the head of a pin."

    And talk about cherry-picking!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Reviewing the record on this story of pundits Maddow and Somerby, excuse me if I trust the instincts of Maddow just a wee bit more.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Blogger is too busy with his Rumpelstiltskin act towards Maddow (hey blogger, she DOES MAKE MILLIONS - burns your ass doesn't it? Good.) and missed the elephant in the living room:

    THE TRAFFIC COUNTS FOR THE STUDY WERE TAKEN FROM E-Z PASS COUNTERS.

    In other words, NOTHING WAS DONE to actually measure the traffic - counts that are routinely taken by pre-installed sensors were compiled to constitute the "study".

    Its now just a simple matter to verify if ANY studies are done this way, without actually counting vehicles by using "road tubes" or other methods.

    There is also a bit in which a questioner clearly nails Baroni that there was not a general "failure of communication" - he gets him to say that there was a UNIDIRECTIONAL failure of communication from (the miscreants in) the PA to the Fort Lee authorities.

    ReplyDelete
  15. While Bob is still writing about traffic, he ignores the interview with Hoboken Mayor, Dawn Zimmer accusing Christie cronies of holding back Sandy aid because she refused to break with procedure and green light money for development funds for a project helmed by Christie pals.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bob has consistently been at least three days behind, which really makes him look like an ass for harping on what happened three days before when tons of new documents and evidence and testimony have come out.

      I'm not sure he even knows who the "Fulop" was in the e-mail that said "His (Sokolich's) name comes right after Fulop."

      He would be wise to look that one up.

      Delete
    2. Somehow Somerby has made himself a major target of some individuals who have made it their day's work to ridicule him. These comments are not convincing to the readership of this blog -- largely people who are interested in critical thinking, media issues and education. The idea that this kind of content-free garbage can or would undercut Somerby's posts is ridiculous, and these trolls are wasting everyone's time.

      Clearly he has rankled someone or they wouldn't be working so hard at this. How can someone who attracts this kind of hard-working troll be saying nothing important? That doesn't make sense.

      Delete
    3. Thanks for being one of the few 7:22.

      Our intellectual culture is broken. Our rotted-out values leave us just this side of insane.

      This breakdown is so widespread it can’t be seen by many observers.

      Delete
    4. 6:55 While Bob is still writing about traffic, he ignores the interview with Hoboken Mayor, Dawn Zimmer accusing Christie cronies.....

      I am surprised Cecelia hasn't beaten me to this. As soon a Zimmer changes her quotes or the interview is paraphrased by Maddow or the New York Times, Bob will cover it.

      Delete
    5. 7:11 Bob has consistently been at least three days behind....

      Bob used to rapidly access and report on many channels
      of current events. Then some clown in big oranges shoes moved some cones and blocked his access and jammed his reportage.

      Delete
  16. 6:55

    To the extent that the blogger keeps blogging he'll be venting his fury at Maddow till kingdom come over this story that de-pantsed him as the uber-fact-checker of all media (don't forget that he checks everything against Lexis-Nexis).

    ReplyDelete
  17. This is a sad moment for me. The Howler was one of the blogs I read back in the "olden days" along with Media Whores that opened my eyes to the sheer awfulness of DC political reporting. That he's devolved to nitpicking Maddow on this story is just pathetic. Like the Bob McDonnel, Virginia Governor's office-Star Scientific scandal, this is an actual issue of corrupt practices by these men.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Me, too. I read him back then and learned a lot. I haven't read him in a couple years and just decided to click on him today. What's happened to him?

      Delete
  18. So sad to see these youngster trolls so hamfistedly defend Maddow with sarcasm and faulty logic. One day this blog will end.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fortunately most of the trolls are oldsters picking on a fool their own age instead of taking up for the rich girl in orange clown shoes.

      Delete
    2. What is your evidence for this, anon 9:58?

      Delete
    3. E-Z passes. We measured E-Z passes just like Baroni and Wildstein.

      I am pretty sure 8:06 was just counting cash customers.
      They tend to be the youngsters.

      Oh, if you did not read Baroni's 77 pages of testimony, you won't get this. But you will be on Somerby's "way Chimps breathe" list.

      Delete
    4. So, more noisy waste of space.

      Delete
    5. You give up easily.

      Delete
  19. outcast...underclass...livinfastJanuary 19, 2014 at 12:45 AM

    excuse me, but what exactly is the problem with floppy orange shoes?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Their reflection cause the one's on Somerby's feet to turn blue?

      Delete
  20. outcast...underclass...livinfastJanuary 19, 2014 at 1:09 AM

    why do i oppose the fake liberal bob somerby? jean-paul marat said it better than i ever could, amazingly a couple hundred years ago:

    "Do not be deceived When our Revolution Has Been finally stamped out and they paternally pat you on the shoulder and say That there's no inequality worth speaking of and no more reason for fighting, Because if you believe them, they will be completely in charge in Their marble homes and granite banks from Which they rob the people of the world under the pretense of Bringing them Cultures ... Watch out, for as soon as it pleases them, they'll send you out to Protect Their gold in wars, who's weapons Rapidly developed by servile scientists will become blackberries and more deadly, until they can, with the flick of the finger, tear a million of you into pieces "

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. These are the times that try Bob's trolls.

      Delete
    2. One of the themes of TDH is that the liberal establishment's fecklessness plays into the hands of the 1%. Gonna have to dock you a few points for missing that.

      But you gain a couple of points for pomposity and high-handedness.

      Delete
    3. outcast...underclass...livinfast. . .January 20, 2014 at 12:46 AM

      ghost rodent, chris christie is a big tool of the 1% and bob somerby is supporting him. gonna have to dock you a few pieces of cheese for missing that.

      but you gain some government cheese for loyalty to somerby.

      Delete
    4. o...u...l..., Of course Christie is a big tool, of the 1% and in general. I haven't missed that, and I don't support him. Neither does TDH, who's quixotic obsession is to take liberal journalists to task for acting like rightwing "journalists." TDH has attacked your heroine for sloppy journalism, so you figure the enemy of your friend is your enemy. That's what TDH calls tribal thinking. Try to deal with TDH on his own terms.

      It's not that I'm "loyal" to TDH. I'm just pointing out that your missing the point. And even if loyalty to TDH was an issue, my reward wouldn't be government cheese. TDH doesn't work for the gov.

      Exiled, poor, and accelerated is no way to go through life, son. Or ignorant.

      Delete
    5. It's late. That's "you're missing the point."

      Delete
    6. Maybe they "missed the point" about Maddow, etc., being a tool of the 1 percent because you just made it up.

      It only sounds clever. It isn't. And if you bothered to watch Maddow at least enough to form your own opinion instead of merely taking Somerby's word about her as Gospel, you'd know how ridiculous your new theory of Somerby's true mission is.

      The guy hates Rachel Maddow. Yes, "hate" is a strong word. But his obsession with parsing every word she says then rushing to his blog on a virtual daily basis to "expose" her latest imagined "fecklessness" speaks for itself, and it doesn't speak well.

      Delete
    7. Anonymous @6:10A, Are you replying to me? 'Cause it's hard to tell.

      I don't think Maddow is a tool of the 1%. I said I think Christie is. TDH hasn't made that claim either.

      I do watch Maddow episodes when TDH takes them to task.

      I don't take TDH's word about her or anybody else as "Gospel." I think her instincts about the importance of Bridgegate were right and TDH's were wrong. I think TDH doesn't give her enough credit when she does good work.

      TDH isn't shy about his mission. It's not new and it doesn't involve theories of mine.

      I'm impressed that you can read his mind to find out whom he hates, the speed with which he takes to his keyboard, and the effects on his psyche. But really all you've got is words on a page. They either make sense or they don't or somewhere in between. Why not deal with that instead of analyzing the blogger or his commenters? The words are right there in front of you. The rest is in your head.

      Delete
  21. Classic troll-speak.

    To them if someone ventures the "wrong" opinion on a blog it's a step backwards for social justice...

    ReplyDelete
  22. It was a dark, stormy, and sleepless night for deadrat and Cecelia.
    Or is it early to bed, early to rise?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stormy in a teacup. You really want to know if I'm just getting up or just going to bed?

      If that's your interest, don't criticize my life. Get one of your own.

      Delete
  23. Hey, don't respectable blogs have a Football Open Thread?

    What will Brady teach us today?

    ReplyDelete
  24. During Game 1 of the 1996 American League Championship Series a boy named Jeff Maier deflected a batted ball, hit by Derek Jeter, into the stands in Yankee Stadium, thus giving the Yanks a (probably) unjustified home run. Maier was a hero, even though this action helped the home team win unfairly. Fans were happy to win, period.

    Outcast, are you like the sports fans? Are you happy to win on an issue, even if the arguments your side uses are deceptive and unfair? Or are you like Bob? Are you embarrassed when liberal opinion leaders behave no better than Rush Limbaugh?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So David, are you saying that Jeter and/or the Yankees, using deceptive and unfair tactics, paid the kid to sit there, knowing Jeter was going to hit a long fly ball directly at him, and to deflect it in the stands?

      Otherwise, your analogy instead of making extremely little sense, makes none at all. In fact, it becomes downright laughable.

      Delete
    2. outcast...underclass...livinfast. . .January 20, 2014 at 12:34 AM

      davidincal says,

      "Outcast, are you like the sports fans? Are you happy to win on an issue, even if the arguments your side uses are deceptive and unfair? Or are you like Bob? Are you embarrassed when liberal opinion leaders behave no better than Rush Limbaugh?"

      >>> never sporting to cheat by definition. and no i wouldnt want to be associated with the fans you describe.

      but politics isnt sport. its real life where the rules are not all written down in a book interpreted by umps and refs.

      to "win" on an issue strikes me as an insight into the way you and many others think...that real life is a game, r's vs. d's, an immature way to see the world which leaves you open to being manipulated into supporting positions against you and your classes interests.

      i dont watch maddow enuf to judge how fair she, is but from what bob somerby typically takes her to task for, she must be a paragon of journalistic virtue compared to what you can hear every day on right wing political talk radio.

      Delete
  25. "Are you embarrassed when liberal opinion leaders behave no better than Rush Limbaugh?" Hunh? (Have you ever attended to Rush Limbaugh? I suspect not, because I suspect you're not so inclined, Dave in Cal, but if you did, you'd be stunned. No comparison to Rachel Maddow, whatever her faults. None at all.)

    There in a nutshell is everything that's wrong with this site. While luring readers who are dissatisfied with the state of journalism, it then encourages no distinctions between vastly different levels and types of journalistic weakness.

    I used to think Bob could be mined for some useful insights. Now I just consider this site at best silly. At worst, it is dangerous -- except I doubt it has many readers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. mch, This isn't a site for readers who are dissatisfied with journalism. It's a site run by a guy who believes that liberal journalists have done a disservice to their own standards by indulging their scripts, prejudices, ignorance, laziness, and a yen for the sensational. TDH says that's more dangerous than pointing it out.

      YMMV, and evidently does. Which is fine, but leads to the question, "What are you doing here?"

      Delete
    2. In reply to the inevitable question, "What are you doing here?" I will merely point out what somebody said yesterday:

      "If that's your interest, don't criticize my life. Get one of your own."

      Delete
    3. Anonymous @5:55A, It's not a criticism. It's your life and you may do what you like with your time. I merely asked a question. Why do you persist in commenting on a blog that you obviously don't understand and in addition, think is "silly" and ineffective? It just seems odd to me.

      Delete
    4. "It's a site run by a guy who believes that liberal journalists have done a disservice to their own standards by indulging their scripts, prejudices, ignorance, laziness, and a yen for the sensational. TDH says that's more dangerous than pointing it out." That's what I thought when I started visiting here (not that this observation about the press is particularly new or original -- I'm older than Bob, who seems to have almost zero historical perspective about journalism). I've come to appreciate that, if that's what this site is really about, it does a damn poor job. You can judge that by the regular commenters, so many of whom are conservatives or "independents" pleased to see Bob bash the people he has characterized as "liberal" (often straw men or women). The only supposed evidence we have that Bob has liberal interests at heart is that he once taught black children in Baltimore and that he knew Al Gore and Tommy Lee Jones in college. (Yeah, those "liberals" -- give me a break. Gore is a centrist dem, at best, which = to the right of Eisenhower.)

      Sometimes you comment places because you think you might contribute something to the conversation. There's almost no conversation worth contributing to here, I have come to realize. You're right. Why bother? It's taken me a while to see what a train wreck this place is. Criticize me for how slow I have been.

      Actually, I suspect that Bob is conducting some weird experiment here. Note, for instance, his continual invocation of "tribalism," which he claims to deplore, and his persistent habit of ginning up "tribal" disputes. I don't choose to be a guinea pig any longer and will try to refrain from slowing down to look for the bodies amidst the wrecked train.

      Delete
    5. "I don't choose to be a guinea pig any longer and will try to refrain from slowing down to look for the bodies amidst the wrecked train."

      Fucking liar, is what you are.

      You 're a troll through and through.

      "I won't be back." You couldn't even manage that lie, though. You'll only "try" not to to come back. What a typical fucking troll liar.

      Delete
  26. The newspaper publisher in The Act of Killing said it best (and proudly) when asked about how he assisted the brutal thugs in their ideological mass murders.

    "Whatever we asked them we changed their answers to make them look bad. As a newspaperman, my job was to make the public hate them."

    ReplyDelete
  27. I'm not sure I get what folks are defending Maddow for. She said that Baroni lied, showed a quote from him, implying the lie was within the quote. But nothing in the quote was untrue. She said as much in everything else she said. Why didn't she just get a quote that was untrue, egregiously untrue to prove her point? That's what I see TDH going on about. If there were lies told by Baroni, she should have put it out there for us to see. If the lies existed and she didn't put it out there, she should be called on it and if there weren't any and she reported as though there were, she should be called on it. I don't see why that's something to defend or how that's a good thing for a journalist to do, right or left wing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In all the trolling, Unknown, there's really little defense of this particular Maddow bullshitting. Maybe that's because you and Somerby are right on the merits.

      Little light. And yet so much heat! What conclusion would you draw?

      Delete