CARLSON UNBOUND: We enjoyed a peaceful easy feeling...

TUESDAY, APRIL 4, 2023

...as Tucker girded for war: We start today with a report from the world of blue tribe cable.

Last Friday afternoon, on blue tribe cable, a peaceful easy feeling obtained in the immediate aftermath of the indictment of Donald J. Trump.

On Deadline: White House, Nicolle Wallace was able to relax for the first time in years. This led to a possibly somewhat comical performance at the start of last Friday's show.

The blue tribe Javert indulged herself in an array of her favorite incantations and formulations. The incantations were aimed at Rubes Like Us. It started at 4 o'clock sharp:

Instantly, at 4 o'clock sharp, Wallace emitted one of her most favorite incantations. ("Most favorite" is one of her terms.) Within seconds of the start of the show, she referred to Donald J. Trump as "the twice-impeached, forever disgraced ex-president."

On this very special occasion, she'd thrown in the word "forever." Soon thereafter, at 4:01, viewers were treated to this:

There's a lot of news developing this hour. We're going to take you through all of it with our favorite reporters and friends.

Yay yay yay yay yay yay yay! Our favorites were going to be there! Also, we were going to get it all!

Nixole was going to take us through all of it with our favorite reporters and friends! Soon after that, at 4:02, she indulged herself with this all-new construction:

We can report that, according to two sources familiar with the matter, [the indictment] lists thirty counts of document fraud-related charges. Our legal friends are here to help us understand what that might mean.

Yay yay yay yay yay yay yay! "Our legal friends" were going to help us too! We don't think we'd ever heard that formulation before!

It was still just 4:02, but our hearts were being set at ease. Then—it was still just 4:03—we got an unusual double twofer. We got to hear the original formulation again, attached to a "lucky for us:"

That's where we begin today with some of our favorite reporters and friends:

Someone who knows the details of this case probably better than most of us, New York Times investigative reporter Susanne Craig is here. Also joining us, Andrew Weissman, former Justice Department prosecutor... Plus the editor at large of The Bulwark, Charlie Sykes is back with us. And with us on set, Mike Schmidt, New York Times Washington correspondent.

Lucky for us, they're all NBC contributors.

It was still 4:03. Already, we had enjoyed two references to "our favorite reporters and friends." Also, we'd enjoyed one "lucky for us," along with an all-new reference to "our legal friends."

Our worried hearts had been set at ease by the use these childish incantations, incantations designed to assure us that we were among our closest friends. 

Goneril and Regan would be on hand. No Cordelias need apply!

This childishly hypnotic framing dates back many years in TV history. We'd track it to the opening segment of the old Mickey Mouse Club in the 1950s. In more recent times, it probably tracks to the hit TV show, Friends.

On cable, Fox News appropriated the farming first, creating the morning program Fox & Friends. (At the time, we described it as the dumbest show in the history of TV news.)

At some point, MSNBC decided to cash in on these grooming techniques. Today, everyone on the channel quickly tells us that everyone else is their friend, with Stephanies sometimes going so far as to refer to certain perhaps unlikely suspects as her "very, very dear friends."

Presumably, techniques like this have come to us through the work of Rashida Jones, MSNBC's president and a good, decent person. In this 2021 profile in the Washington Post, Jones was quoted asking this somewhat comical question:

“We have audiences that will sit there and watch [MSNBC] for hours and hours and hours,” Jones said. “So, how do we get more people into that camp?”

How can we make them sit there and watch us all day? Making us think we're serviced by friends may have been one of the answers!

Wherever the practice originated, a peaceful, easy feeling had descended on the set of Deadline: White House as of last Friday afternoon. Of one thing we viewers could be certain:

We'd never be asked to hear about what was happening Over There, on Tucker's Carlson's astonishing show.

For marks like us, it was a peaceful, easy feeling, even as Carlson and his friends were aggressively girding for war. 

Last Friday morning, we showed you the transcript of one of Carlson's segments from Thursday night—the night before Wallace showered us with references to the lucky way we would be helped by our various friends.

Watching Wallace go through her paces, we would never have to hear about what was happening Over there. 

We wouldn't hear about what Jason Whitlock had said the previous night, or about what Glenn Beck had said. We wouldn't hear about what Carlson himself had said, on Tuesday and Wednesday nights, about the "transgenderist" war which was being conducted against our 9-year-old Christian kids.

In fact, there's a whole lot of things we're never forced to hear about when we sell our souls to a TV star and the rest of our many friends. We will be serviced with what we want, with: 

Trump Trump Trump Trump Jail!

Carlson had staged an astonishing program last Thursday night. If possible, his programs on Tuesday and Wednesday nights had been crazier, stupider, uglier., more dangerous.

Over at Salon, a (very) young journalist named Samaa Khullar had known enough to report what Carlson, Whitlock and Beck had said. (Khullar is a senior at NYU.)  

Elsewhere, almost no one ever did—and Wallace fulfilled a type of corporate mission, telling us that we would hear from no one but our friends.

We think you need to hear more about what Carlson has been saying. For us, this theme stretches all the way back to the earliest days of this site—to the press corps' failure to come to terms with the things being said at that time by major figures like Rush and Sean, but also by the extremely holy Reverend Falwell.

By now, our "cable news" culture has split into two. Each major channel feeds its viewers the pablum they very much like.

Wallace and her friends seem to know what we want. We'll suggest, in the next few days, that there may be a few things we need.

Tomorrow: Three cheers for Samaa Khullar

As always, our full disclosure: Please remember—this is all anthropology now. Nothing we say is intended to change the way our tribe gets serviced.


105 comments:

  1. The second amendment is evil.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here is an aspect of culture war that the left might address:

      https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/04/opinion/nashville-shooting-guns.html

      Delete
    2. It’s not the 2nd alone that’s evil, what’s really evil is how it has been misinterpreted and misused by right wingers.

      Guns are now the leading cause of death for children in the US.

      White people commit suicide by gun at an astonishing rate in America, it dwarfs murders; why are Whites so sad?

      Evidence suggests it is largely due to the knife-edge lifestyle of a non egalitarian society.

      Nice going, right wingers!

      Delete
    3. Anonymouse 4:09pm, that stat is for children and teens.

      We are a society that stresses equality, not equity.

      “Evidence suggests it is largely due to the knife-edge lifestyle of a non egalitarian society.”

      If that was “largely” the case, wouldn’t nonwhites off themselves in larger per pop numbers than whites?


      Delete
    4. Cecelia, go back and read. He SAID it was for children. But suicide stats are for adults.

      equity definition: the quality of being fair and impartial

      equality definition: the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, and opportunities

      egalitarian definition: relating to or believing in the principle that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities

      You are so confused Cecelia. We are a society that strives for both equity and equality/egalitarianism. We do not strive for equality of outcome (as some societies in other times and places have done).

      Liberals seek an egalitarian society. That you claim that conservatives do not is very revealing and I have no doubt it is true for you, personally and for many, if not most Republicans.

      It may be that the inequity and inequality of outcome leads to despair and suicide, or it may be that the failure to attain the equity/equality sought is what leads to suicide among those at the bottom of the heap. I suspect that it is more complex than that, but it is true that white people are more suicidal (and also kill others in mass shootings) than black people. It may be that white people have greater expectations given their brutal racial history and thus more angry than black people. I do see racism as the response of a disappointed white person led to believe he deserves and should receive more than he has, who takes his anger out on those below him on the social scale (too frightened and powerless to kick up, he kicks down instead). Competition for resources exacerbates such a dynamic. That is how the "knife-edge lifestyle of a non egalitarian society" would put greater pressure on those higher in status, those who think they should be succeeding more than they are. Or perhaps black families comfort their kids and teach their children not to act out when they feel upset about their place in life, while white parents blame their children for failing, as Trump's father did him (and especially Fred Jr.).

      It is very sad that you, Cecelia, do not understand the values and ideals upon which our country was founded. You may have heard Republicans say that we are not egalitarian, but that doesn't give you the right to set aside what our Constitution says. And this attitude of who cares what happens to the least of us doesn't allow you to be blatantly racist or to mistrust immigrants, or whatever attitude lets you walk around in our world without caring about other people's lives. You are exhibit C of why conservatives cannot be allowed to decide how our society should operate, given that you don't care what happens to anyone but you.

      Delete
    5. Some interesting Somerby-style nonsense there.

      Adolescents are children, your distinguishing is pointless and, frankly, ghoulish.

      Our society in no way stresses equality (if only!), the disparity between how wealthy we are as a country vs the wealth inequality is as great as the days of the robber barons, we went from a nation built by slaves to a nation of wage slaves; so, in a way, right wingers did make America great again.

      We are an animal that naturally stresses egalitarianism, indeed this is how our societies have been for 95% of our existence. We turned away from equality and egalitarianism about 10-12k years ago when we transitioned to an agrarian/surplus based society. Every time we make gains to return to our natural roots, right wingers, via various forms of oppression, work hard to wipe them away.

      Non Whites tend to not be right wing, that’s a meaningful distinction. American Whites own the guns and own the mantle of oppressor, they’re the ones that created and bought into this nonsense society of competition, hierarchy, dog eat dog, no safety net, no welfare, and zero sum game. Whites are the ones responsible for this mess, and when that “personal responsibility” kicks in, they sometimes can feel no other option.

      So, yes, the 2nd amendment is evil, largely because of how right wingers have misinterpreted and misused it.

      Delete
    6. Above is referring to Cecelia, not 5:56’s excellent comment.

      Delete
    7. Anonymouse 5:56pm, you don’t seek an egalitarian society. You seek equity.

      You seek equity at the expense of an equalitarian society. You do that in order to obscure individuality and independence, and to put groups against each other, and so mitigate any challenge to your bit of power.

      Delete
    8. 12:02,
      So, open borders?

      Delete
  2. Somerby makes a fuss about Nicolle Wallace referring to her guests as lawyer and reporter friends. What is the harm in it? Meanwhile, he himself uses a varietty of tactics to make it clear how he feels about her:

    1. "The blue tribe Javert indulged herself in an array of her favorite incantations and formulations. " Javert of course is the police villain from Les Mis. (Wallace is a cable news host, a news reader. Do you see any connection -- I don't.)

    2. "Nixole [sic] was going to take us through all of it..." That is too far from Nicolle to be a typo, but what does he mean by that one? Does he suggest she is nixing Trump? Is it really something heinous that a cable host is opposed to Trump on the day he is indicted?

    3. "Goneril and Regan would be on hand. No Cordelias need apply!" Here we have the two awful daughters from King Lear -- the ones who behave badly against their father. But is Trump Wallace's father? That would be an odd and inappropriate way of thinking given that it is Trump being indicted, not Wallace.

    This is how Somerby puts his thumb on the scales concerning Wallace, who he obviously doesn't like, but for his own childish and ridiculous reasons -- she calls other on-screen guests "friends" instead of what, "esteemed associates"? Ultimately, he will blame the Mickey Mouse Club.

    Talk about childish pique -- Somerby is the king of it. But why is he so upset about something so innocuous, on the day Trump is being indicted? Can it be because he is upset about Trump's past catching up with him, displacing that feeling onto Wallace, who is the messenger, the bearer of bad news, but the instigator of nothing? Somerby needs to grow up and be an adult about this. It is only going to get worse for Trump.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Can it be because he is upset about Trump's past catching up with him, displacing that feeling onto Wallace,..."

      There it is in its classic form. The Anonymouse ability to read Bob's words and see in them the 'displacement' at work.

      He never says what he means, does he?.

      Delete
    2. Actually, Somerby never does say what he means. He uses rhetorical devices to avoid being pinned down. For example, he calls someone a good decent person, then savages them. Or he says "Could it be that..." and then concludes "maybe not, I don't know, but anything is possible." Trump does that too. Or Somerby attributes his stupider ideas to "future anthropologists huddled in caves", or some such nonsense.

      If you have been reading Somerby very long, it is obvious he was upset yesterday. Today he has written an essay about absolutely nothing at all, in order to say mean things about Nicolle Wallace, who is doing nothing wrong at all, except reporting about Trump's problems. Ya doesn't have to call that displacement, but it isn't media criticism either.

      Delete
    3. I took “Nixolle” to mean nixonesque— obsequiousness as a cover for being artful and ambitious.

      Delete
    4. C and X are adjacent on the keyboard. Sometimes a typo is just a typo.

      Delete
    5. I am seeing Nixolle (and Nixole) references by people whose name is Nicolle, such as on twitter or TikTok, and there is a singer named Nixole, but I don't know what that means and neither does Google. Designer Ted Baker has a Nixole ruched sleeve top. I doubt that has anything to do with Nixon.

      Delete
    6. The typo theory would have to both substitute an x for the c but also drop one of the l's in her name.

      Delete
    7. Maybe it's a reference to Cynthia Nixon.

      Delete
    8. Somerby never corrects his typos or mistakes, even when they concern facts, dates or matters of substance. Even a newspaper prints corrections. It is not unusual for him to forget to put the right day at the head of his essay. We point that out but he ignores us (because he doesn't want to admit to anyone that he reads his comments). It may or may not be corrected later in the day if he notices it. Other mistakes are never corrected when they occur in text.

      Delete
    9. I'd ask for a refund.

      Delete
    10. Hector troll dusting to make sure we haven’t forgotten what a silly Somerby fanboy simp he is. You don’t have to keep embarrassing yourself, we know, Hector, we know.

      Delete
    11. “Maybe it's a reference to Cynthia Nixon.”

      Anonymouse 1:44pm, just go with the “nixing Trump” formulation. It says it all.

      Delete
    12. "I'd ask for a refund."

      I'd settle for a retraction or two.

      Delete
    13. Republicans know Trump is corrupt, but that is outweighed by his somewhat unique ability to make them feel like they are owning the libs, which is of supreme importance to them.

      Right wing behavior indicates that they consider notions like integrity are for the leftists.

      Delete
    14. "...his somewhat unique ability to make them feel like they are owning the libs, which is of supreme importance to them."

      Rhymes with "shmigotry".

      Delete
  3. "Wallace and her friends seem to know what we want. "

    Yes, we have wanted Trump to be arrested and tried for years now. But Wallace, even with friends, didn't do this. The justice system has (because it is their job), using evidence Trump has provided by committing crimes and trying to cover them up. Somerby should be blaming Trump, but instead he blames a woman whose main fault is being onscreen to discuss news she didn't create and being insufficiently sad (for Somerby's taste) about Trump's problems.

    ReplyDelete
  4. On number three, I would throw in that in any decent reading or production of Lear we would observe that the old man has behaved like a bullying Lout, basically creating the behavior of his two awful daughters who are, after all, chips of the old block. Cordelia is well aware of this but chooses to behave in a saint like fashion, maybe this is how Bob sees himself?

    ReplyDelete
  5. "This childishly hypnotic framing dates back many years in TV history. We'd track it to the opening segment of the old Mickey Mouse Club in the 1950s. In more recent times, it probably tracks to the hit TV show, Friends."

    This childish framing comes straight from Somerby who wrongly attributes on-screen cordiality to a series of unrelated TV shows. The show Friends has nothing to do with chatty anchors on news shows besides the word "friend." It is an insult to children to call this moronic complaint childish. It is a tradition and Wallace didn't invent it. Look at the name of the show over on Fox: Fox and Friends.

    Somerby is throwing his own tantrum about Trump's appearance in court today. He has picked his favorite target, some hapless female cable news host, and he has collected a set of stream-of-consciousness images that have nothing to do with anything, except they are negative and aimed at her.

    This has nothing to do with media criticism and everything to do with Somerby's wounded feelings over his support for Trump.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My guess would be a lot of this comes from the gangs of crazies in Morning Zoo radio. Leave Mickey alone.

      Delete
  6. "At some point, MSNBC decided to cash in on these grooming techniques."

    Talk about spreading right wing memes! Somerby uses an ugly term (grooming) appropriated by the right wing to imply that people such as Joe Biden is sexualizing children. Like Republicans, he has broadened the term to apply to anything they dislike, such as being polite and nice to one's invited guests on a TV show, by referring to them as friends.

    No one on the left uses that term other than in the way it was originally used -- to refer to the way someone sexually interested in children befriends them and gains their trust. Reading the news on TV does not constitute grooming, not even if one refers to one's guests as reporter friends.

    But this does reveal the way Somerby has bought into the right wing jargon transmitted on Fox shows. When he says this he echoes Lauren Boebert and Marjorie Taylor Greene and the propagandists who are trying to discredit the left by calling the president a p*do (as Greene did on 60 Minutes).

    I get it that Somerby is angry at MSNBC for enjoying Trump's bad day (we all are over here on the left), but in his angst, he reveals his thoughts and they are red red red. No liberal would refer to anyone except a sex offender using that term. That reveals Somerby as a rightwing shill more firmly than any accusation I might make about his sympathies. He has blown his cover.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good catch at 10:25. One wonders if Bob has yet had to delete "Soros Backed."

      Delete
  7. “Somerby is throwing his own tantrum about Trump's appearance in court today. He has picked his favorite target, some hapless female cable news host, and he has collected a set of stream-of-consciousness images that have nothing to do with anything, except they are negative and aimed at her. ”

    Why?

    Because Bob likes you!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Have you forgotten that they were spelling out the word M-I-C-K-E-Y and got to Y? C=See you real soon. This is innocuous children's pap and no one would complain about it except a moron who thinks M&Ms wear shoes. Are you righties going to ban Mickey Mouse now (because DeSantis doesn't get to control Disneyland's support for gays)?

      Delete
    2. Anonymouse, how about the cartoon character widely known as Nicolle Wallace?

      Delete
    3. Name calling isn't discussion. And that makes you more of a "cartoon character" than Wallace is.

      Delete
    4. Anonymouse 12:24, Wallace has a 12 hour a day show in which she name-calls wide swaths of people.

      Delete
    5. Jimmy Dodd was a good, decent person. The Mouseketeers remembered him fondly.

      Delete
    6. 2 hour a day, not 12

      I went and watched a portion of yesterday's show and didn't hear any name calling at all, as she discussed Trump's trouble. Then she introduced a guest, Zoe Lofgren who talked about his fund-raising. I am not going to watch the whole show, because I don't use my time that way, but it struck me as just a cable news show, like others and no different.

      I did not hear any name-calling in the time I listened. After talking about Trump's followers, Wallace showed a clip of Cy Vance being interviewed about why he didn't charge Trump himself, and they discussed that clip. That isn't name-calling either.

      They discussed his rhetoric and its use in fund-raising, the possible reaction of his supporters to his arraignment, and the potential for violence among them. It was straight reporting and discussion.

      You called Wallace cartoonish without supplying any evidence or examples, but I saw nothing that could be characterized that way, so I think you are just calling names and not seriously discussing her work as a cable news host. Either quote her wide swaths or be considered a buffoon (or more of a buffoon).

      Delete
    7. Anonymouse 1:34pm, oh, please.

      It will take you about 15 seconds to google enough YouTube or Twitter of Wallace condemning Republicans en masse. Just as you do.

      To your thinking, THAT is all factual and unassailable. Whereas Somerby saying that Republican personalities are crazy and dangerous and criticizing his own tribal members as getting there, is proof of his perfidy.

      Get a clue.





      Delete
    8. Why would I look at YouTube or Twitter to see Wallace when I can watch her actual show and see what she said in context? Cecelia, Republicans are responsible en masse -- except a handful of never-Trumpers who might be excused if they weren't too late or too weasely about their defection from Dear Leader. Notice that Liz Cheney has been silent.

      And yes, the things Republicans say and do are factual evidence of their culpability. That is how evidence works. Somerby saying that anyone is crazy, without evidence, is name-calling just like it is when you do it yourself. Somerby calls Wallace a bunch of ugly things without any evidence at all. Just like you.

      And, for the record, calling Republicans names isn't exactly what the word "cartoonish" means. Now you are accusing her of something different than when you started out. She at least quotes people when she says they have said or done something. You and Somerby don't bother.

      Delete
    9. “And, for the record, calling Republicans names isn't exactly what the word "cartoonish" means. Now you are accusing her of something different than when you started out. She at least quotes people when she says they have said or done something. You and Somerby don't bother.”

      Oh, good. Now quote me some of the pity and non-cartoonish things that Wallace says about her contrarians.

      Delete
  8. Rashida Jones wants to increase viewership on her network. The horror!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Well on this day of all days Bob returns to well trod, if profoundly stupid ground.
    First we should note that Wallace, and other MSNBC hosts, often DO take note of what is going on at FOX, Maddow does it in a sort of apologetic way. So Bob is either lying or experiencing some kind of (alcoholic?) black out during the show. Perhaps he uses this childish bitching about not having a transcript as cover for his own misreporting? Also, it's not MSNBC's job to police FOX, and the management has done it so badly they are likely to get killed in Court in the next year.
    Yes, the cutesy poo banter and clubhouse atmosphere is a rather annoying tick of these shows, for some of us anyway. In fact, it so standard that if you are bitching about it now it's probably because you can't find (or are too lazy to find?) anything much wrong with the content being presented on the shows. After all, Trump HAS been impeached twice, and the most shocking thing about that was people like Bob couldn't really care less. He doesn't care about the cops who got bear spray in the face on Trump's behalf either.
    Wallace guests are highly qualified and know what they are talking about, and as Bob has noted they contradict her from time to time as well (To be fair, Fox let's Geraldo take on the goofballs over there once in awhile, Geraldo, like Bill Maher, has made a fortune splitting everything down the middle), If Bob thinks it's unfair to claim Trump has been disgraced, O.K., but that's rather a judgement call.
    Well, we have heard all this before. But Bob is really signaling something, in admittedly the most childish possible way, that really tells us something about the way we have been sold a bill of goods in the reporting of American Politics. FOX has become a travesty of ruthless bullshit, and JUST WHAT IS MSNBC GOING TO DO ABOUT IT? So it goes with the reporting on the left and right in corporate propaganda in American Politics. So it has always gone.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, Bill Maher fawns all over his guests, including the right wing ones, to the point of being nauseating. But he knows they won't come back if they don't enjoy their time on his show. Access is important to him, as it is to any talk format show.

      Delete
    2. Kind of, but in the Trump era Maher has been quite rude to his liberal guests, and rarely goes into the worst of Trump's crude and ugly behavior (you might think from watching the show the worst thing Trump has done is say mean things about Bill Maher). On his election eve appearance last year, Maher was so rude to Micheal Moore, Moore seemed confused about the whole thing.

      Delete
    3. Good point. Maybe Somerby expects hosts to be rude and mean to liberal guests because that is what he sees on right-wing shows, so it seems more jarring or somehow wrong when hosts are nice to such guests on mainstream media?

      People are already saying that Lesley Stahl was too nice to MTG on 60 Minutes. Barbara Walters was always nice, even when being invasive, so maybe people just expect the mean-spiritedness of Limbaugh and the right, as entertainment. It may be Somerby is asking why Wallace doesn't attack her guests more, not why is she calling them friends. But news discussion shows aren't attack shows on the left, so Somerby thinks something is wrong -- fake phoney niceness. But then I don't really think the meanness and anger are fake on the right. And their audience gets off on it, as Somerby would like to when watching MSNBC, but Wallace is too nicey-nice for him. Next he will call her performative -- just wait.

      Delete
    4. It's interesting that TDH hasn't found time to "muse" about the repulsive performance by Lesley Stahl on 60 Minutes. Guess he's spend the rest of the week attacking Wallace.

      Delete
    5. What's interesting about it?

      Delete
    6. @11:53, it suggests his priorities are skewed.

      Delete
    7. I didn’t watch the interview, but I saw clips and I’m somewhat what sympathetic to Stahl in this instance. There is no perfect way to deal with the freaky deaky right wing fringe. Just ignoring them is an imperfect solution.

      Delete
    8. 60 Minutes gets far higher ratings than anything on Fox or MSNNC.

      Delete
    9. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Protest Flops
      April 4, 2023 at 12:55 pm EDT By Taegan Goddard

      “Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) arrived to protest former President Donald Trump’s arrest in front of a New York City court Tuesday — and left within a few minutes after counter-protesters drowned out her comments with whistles and boos,” Semafor reports.

      “Greene’s comments could not be heard through her megaphone over the noise, and eyewitness reports and tweets from the scene showed the congresswoman leaving the area with her bodyguards.”

      Delete
  10. I find this sort of remark irritating every time Somerby says it:

    "Nothing we say is intended to change the way our tribe gets serviced."

    Getting serviced has a sexual connotation. Somerby uses this phrase to apply to women he dislikes, today Nicolle Wallace, who is doing her job in the same way as any male host. She is "servicing" no one, not her audience and not her guests.

    This is a form of sexism when Somerby reserves such a term for the female hosts he disparages, reducing them to a sexual function and demeaning them as professionals. He is doing it because he dislikes her, but why single her out for something everyone does? And why is Somerby trying to make her the new Rachel Maddow in his hierarchy of hate targets?

    Somerby needs to hear that when he mistreats women as the targets of his ire, he is driving female readers here further to the left, which may not be his intent. Or perhaps he just can't help himself, given his inner demons. But that really is no excuse. He wouldn't last long if he showed this ugly bias on the job anywhere (except over at Fox), because people who pay their writers care whether they alienate the female audience.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "Carlson had staged an astonishing program last Thursday night. If possible, his programs on Tuesday and Wednesday nights had been crazier, stupider, uglier, more dangerous."

    There goes Bob the MAGA shill again, pretending to savage the right. Thankfully there are TDH commenters who can see through this verbal trickery.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But what does it mean, exactly: "If possible, his programs on Tuesday and Wednesday nights had been crazier, stupider, uglier, more dangerous"?

      ...and "astonishing" sounds like a compliment.

      Delete
    2. It’s simply beyond the comprehension of a POS like you Mao, that’s all.

      Delete
    3. What this is Hector, is the warning on the pack of cigarettes, keep smoking Bob and it will kill ya.

      Delete
    4. Somerby says something like this, but then he goes on to tell us we should all watch Tucker Carlson because he has better, different facts than appear on mainstream media, where they won't tell us important stuff. Why would any sort of liberal say that? There is so much disinformation on Fox that a person would have difficulty telling which facts are true. As Somerby talks here, he reveals that he believes some of the lies told over there. And that makes his recommendations about Tucker suspect, even when he is calling Carlson names.

      Delete
    5. Tucker Carlson is worse than ever but Nicolle Wallace gets a whole essay today for calling someone a friend?

      Delete
    6. 12:19,

      I don't suppose you could give an example of one of the 'Fox' lies Bob believes?

      Delete
    7. Hector, not sure of the relevancy, but
      that’s not the game Bob plays. His claim,
      slightly different than the one he plays with Trump, is to deny we can know that the misinformation that Fox reported, say that Hugo Shavez was behind the corruption of the voting machines, was knowingly deliberately pumped out as credible reporting. But go to any
      silly claim made by Fox from there. It’s the same with Trump’s “disordered” claims. I think they are doomed in Court and that’s going to be painful to Bob, but we shall see.

      Delete
    8. Here are some: Stormy Daniels blackmailed Trump. Trump never had sex with Stormy. Trump really believes that the election was stolen in 2020. The Ruby Bridges film was not banned. Maus deserved to be banned to protect the children. Hunter Biden's laptop scandal was suppressed by the press. The 1/6 Committee presentations were partisan and fake. Kavanaugh was innocent of all charges. There is no gender wage gap caused by sexism, just women's choices. Racism is no longer a thing, just a way for Democrats to name-call Republicans. Schools cannot be integrated any more than they are. The 1619 Project had too many factual errors to be used by schools. Trying to include more black students in NYC's science high schools is discrimination against Asian students. Roy Moore was persecuted by the press and not guilty of any misbehavior with underage girls. Brock Turner was not guilty of assault because Chanel Miller shouldn't have been so drunk. Kyle Rittenhouse was attacked by his victim and shot in self-defense, as were the two additional people he shot. Michael Brown attacked the officer who shot him, and he deserved to be shot because witnesses gave disparate statements. George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin because Trayvon was beating his head against the cement and pummeling him. Liberal wokeness is causing the left to lose votes. Black wokeness is ruining African American studies.

      Somerby regularly claims we would all know the truth of these things if we only watched more Fox News.

      Delete
    9. @1:34 - that liberals and progressives suck.

      Delete
    10. 2:07 comment of the week!

      Also there has been a noted shift in how Somerby covers Tucker, ever since we found out Tucker thinks Trump is a “demonic force” and a “destroyer”.

      Delete
  12. "Yay yay yay yay yay yay yay!"

    Trump is finally going to be tried for a few of his crimes!

    ReplyDelete
  13. From Rawstory:

    ""In a clever bit of trolling, Florida Democrats are subjecting DeSantis’ new tome — 'The Courage To Be Free: Florida’s Blueprint for America’s Revival' — to the rules that he and GOP lawmakers established to weed out books with allegedly inappropriate content on race, sexuality, and gender from school libraries," reported Jake Lahut.

    "Fentrice Driskell, the minority leader in the Florida House, is leading an effort across 50 counties to see if any of them might review or ban DeSantis’ book based on his law’s vague and unwieldy criteria."

    “The very trap that he set for others is the one that he set for himself,” said Driskell in a statement to The Daily Beast."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is the kind of tactics we should be employing more of; surely there are ways to box in the current right wing Supreme Court in a way that would allow blue states like CA to pass progressive legislation.

      Delete
  14. According to the NY Times, General Ulysses S. Grant was arrested while president, for racing horses in the streets of Washington D.C. He accepted that graciously but didn't show up for his trial, forfeiting his bail. So it is incorrect that Trump is the first president to be arrested. He is the first to be arrested for a felony, much less 34 of them. That's assuming he shows up -- as of right now, he hasn't arrived yet.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. US Grant did good work, but he made some mistakes, too.

      Delete
    2. Apparently racing horses in DC is a mistake.

      Many of DC’s streets are one way, so perhaps Grant should have taken that into consideration.

      Delete
    3. It can be fatal to pedestrians and drivers and horses.

      Delete
  15. Back when Fox was lying about Dominion in 2020, MSNBC (including Maddow) was spending a lot of time debunking all of that. Crickets from Somerby.

    ReplyDelete
  16. What does Somerby want MSNBC to do? Tell their viewers that Carlson and Fox in general are promoting the idea that transgender kids are the avant-garde of liberal groomers who want to kill Christians? It’s so vicious and ridiculous.

    So Fox/Republicans are spreading lies and hate via ridiculous and hateful, crazy BS. What else is new?

    Come to think of it, I haven’t seen Somerby make any sort of defense of transgender kids. He has, however, expressed some sympathy for the right wing position on this.

    So who knows why Somerby wants this crap discussed.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Somerby doesn't believe racism is a thing, but things like this keep happening:

    "A North Dakota man was sentenced to two years in prison for physically attacking Black children who were playing outside his house.

    Larry Wayne Baldner, 74, started the confrontation after finding five children playing basketball in a driveway he shared with neighbors at his Fargo duplex home on Sept. 21, 2021, and he told them to leave his property, reported InForum.

    An 11-year-old who lived next door to Baldner told police they were playing on her family's side of the sidewalk, according to a criminal complaint, but she said the man used a racial slur and slapped the child across the face.

    The girl and her sister confronted Baldner, who then grabbed the 11-year-old by the neck and hair, lifted her off the ground and began choking her, according to the complaint."

    He was convicted and sentenced to 2 years in jail. But folks like Somerby, who watches Fox News, think the biggest danger to children comes from reading Maus in school. And there is no reason for kids to learn about racism in school, even if they experience it in their everyday lives, while trying to go about their business the way everyone else does.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Speaking of inappropriate literary references, Javert was the dogged policeman from Les Miserables who hounded Jean ValJean, whose crime was … stealing a loaf of bread to feed his poor and starving family. ValJean made a success of himself and became a prominent member of society.

    Somerby’s implicit equating of Trump with ValJean is intensely ludicrous, because if Wallace is Javert, that makes Trump the wronged ValJean.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Clearly any Trump to ValJean comparison would be a bad one. What reason do we have to think Bob was making it?

      Is he, in writing a daily blog, required to have a formal symmetry present in any off-hand literary comparison he makes?

      Delete
    2. Oh, I don’t know Hector. Maybe because Javert was known precisely for his lifelong hounding of a petty criminal (ValJean) whose “crime” was excusable.

      Delete
    3. Are you really that dense? He called Wallace Javert. He is obviously implying that Wallace is persecuting Trump. He has said as much with his complaints that MSNBC is slavering over putting Trump in jail, that it is Trump Trump Trump Trump and a call for jail jail jail on MSNBC 24/7. Do you not read this blog before writing your comments?

      And yes, in writing his daily blog, he is supposed to have his off-hand literary comparions make sense. If you relieve writers of the requirement to make sense, you undermine communication to the point that you might as well not talk at all.

      Either Somerby is trying to rehabilitate Trump with such a reference, or he is trying to portray him as the victim of legal persecution. Either way, Somerby is supporting Trump with this not-very-obscure reference.

      Delete
    4. If an 'implicit' comparison is interpreted as 'intensely ludicrous', one is entitled to wonder whether the ludicrousness resides in the comparison or its interpretation.

      I think Bob compared Wallace to Javert because it's a humorous way of highlighting her doggedness in continually discussing and re-discussing and re-re-discussing Trump's legal woes.

      That makes sense, and doesn't accuse Bob of making additional, ludicrous comparisons that aren't there on the page.

      Delete
    5. If you are wondering whether it is Somerby who is mixed up, or his commenters, bet on us not Somerby. There is nothing humorous about Javert (if you ever saw the show, read the book or watched the movie). Nor did Javert merely discuss anything. If doggedness is the only connection, maybe Javert is Trump, because look how doggedly he has collected money from his supporters and pursued reelection, despite hating the job itself (he doesn't like to work).

      Somerbly comparison was ludicrous, but not for the reasons you suggest -- that he ignored the entire content of his literary reference. Stretch harder and you might make something less specious fit your desired narrative.

      Delete
    6. 5:30,

      An alert reader might have noticed my use of 'humorous' applied not to the character of Javert but to the comparison of Wallace to Javert, as if Wallace were herself an inspector in dogged pursuit of Trump.

      As for betting, if I were to risk money on Anonymice, I'd quickly be out of cheddar.

      Delete
    7. Hector/Cecelia, don't be calling people here rodents.

      People didn't overlook your comparison. @5:30 discussed and dismissed both ways of interpreting Somerby's reference, saying:

      "Somerbly [sic] comparison was ludicrous, but not for the reasons you suggest -- that he ignored the entire content of his literary reference."

      There is no way of interpreting what Somerby wrote that makes it comprehensible or humorous. It doesn't make sense because what we know about Javert has nothing to do with Wallace or her remarks about Trump. Javert wasn't just dogged, he was the bad guy who was persecuting the hero. Somerby cannot ignore all of that other context and only fixate on fixedness. That isn't how anyone thinks and it isn't how literary references work either. So we are left with Somerby only calling Wallace an ugly name, Javert, without it fitting anything about her.

      Delete
    8. Anonymouse 7:45pm, leaving aside my ability to morph into any good speller who disagrees with an anonymouse, in Javert’s defense, a crime (no matter the size) had been committed… no?

      Delete
    9. And if you think that is what the story is about, you must have flunked your GED like Boebert.

      Delete
    10. Anonymouse 10:40pm. on contrary, I completely understand Somerby’s point about the persecutory zeal fitting the crime.

      Delete
    11. De-fund the police!

      Delete
  19. It’s nice to know Somerby still has some sympathy for someone out there — his guy trump trump trump.

    Also, that he can still muster anger, but only when his guy trump trump trump has been criticized.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Under the current legal structure, a prosecutor could do to any of us what Alvin Bragg just did to Trump.

    "The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day. Why? The answer lies in the very nature of modern federal criminal laws, which have exploded in number but also become impossibly broad and vague. In Three Felonies a Day, Harvey A. Silverglate reveals how federal criminal laws have become dangerously disconnected from the English common law tradition and how prosecutors can pin arguable federal crimes on any one of us, for even the most seemingly innocuous behavior. The volume of federal crimes in recent decades has increased well beyond the statute books and into the morass of the Code of Federal Regulations, handing federal prosecutors an additional trove of vague and exceedingly complex and technical prohibitions to stick on their hapless targets."
    https://www.econlib.org/three-felonies-a-day/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, he can only do this to those who commit crimes. If the charges are too tenuous a jury won't convict. Does anyone believe that Trump's violations were only technicalities? Was his tryst with Stormy similarly all a big misunderstanding (by two people in their underwear)? Some guy writing a self-serving book doesn't overturn our justice system, David, especially not when his argument is that we are insufficiently connected to English common law. What about Louisiana, which is connected to French common law?

      This is Trump's talking point -- if they can convict Trump then they can convict any of us. Except none of us lies, steals and breaks the law the way Trump does. My conscience is clear. If yours isn't that is between you and your personal ethics. It is understandable that conservatives may have fewer ethics to guide them and thus feel more exposed when prosecutors finally decide to take the law more seriously. Stay clean, my friend.

      Delete
    2. econlib.org
      LOL

      Delete
    3. You have to understand, David doesn't consider white color crimes to be wrong. The highlight of his career was going down to the Bahamas to work for a criminal dodging his taxes. David is proud of this.

      Delete
    4. David,
      You have it backwards. If they can kill Osama bin Laden for playing an April Fool's joke on the USA in September, what's to stop them from charging Trump for committing felonies? You had your chance to decry the slippery slope, and you slept through it. I'm not going to shed any tears for your lazy ass.

      Delete
    5. Good to know, gentlemen. Let’s move Trump’s trial to Laurel, Mississippi.

      Delete
    6. Trump didn’t commit crimes in Mississippi, dumbass.

      Delete
    7. Anonymouse 9:42pm, I’ll take that as you ignoring a change of venue scenario.

      Delete
    8. A state charge in New York isn’t going to change venue to Mississippi, dumbass.

      Delete
    9. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    10. Anonymouse 5:27pm” he can only do this to those who commit crimes. If the charges are too tenuous a jury won't convict.”

      Anonymouse 9,58pm, “A state charge in New York isn’t going to change venue to Mississippi, dumbass.”

      Otherwise, the statement about juries is too broad.

      So what’s your point about the sacrosanctity of juries?


      Delete
    11. It is how our justice system protects the accused from prosecutorial overreach. That and appeal. Pretending there are no protections is ignorant or disinformation.

      Delete
    12. Anonymouse 10:37pm, right you are. That’s why courts acknowledge that juries aren’t impeccable and that trial venues matter.

      Delete
    13. Anonymouse 7:00pm. David understands that the Bushes, McConnells, and the Bidens want to give you a two bedroom condo and a 6 month waiting list for free medical care.

      The world is smaller now. There’s only so many of them that can rule it while you’re focused on Sally Hastings and the proper pronouns.

      Delete
    14. You’re the only one here who mentioned “sally Hastings” and pronouns, Cecelia. You seem to be the one focused on it.

      Delete
    15. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    16. Anonymouse 11:40pm, you worry about the relevancy of Sally Hastings and gender pronouns every minute of every day,

      Delete
    17. That's what they are teaching 12:06 in her 2nd Grade Advanced CRT class.
      LOL.

      Delete
    18. In Cecelia's defense, she heard some Right-wing bullshitter lie about CRT being taught in elementary schools, and she's not smart enough to know she's being lied to.
      Think of her as the Joe Rogan of TDH.

      Delete