The Atlantic - Latest Comments in From the department of False Equivalency

Re: From the department of False Equivalency

pseudonymous in nc — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 01:51:51 -0000

Kurtz was the guy who thought Michelle 'counter peeker' Malkin was worthy of a softball profile in the WaPo. He's not just a walking conflict-of-interest, but a rotten journalist. Real Liars, Bull Sources.

Do I think that 'Countdown' was better before the seemingly-never-ending election season? Yeppy. And I'll be interested to see how Olbermann handles the next year. I'll be more interested to see what Murdoch dictates for Fox News, though, given the way his newspapers adapted to Tony Blair as PM. Shep Smith is an interesting windvane, in that respect.

Re: From the department of False Equivalency

rickhavoc — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 23:31:01 -0000

To be fair, and balanced, I assume Hannity also wanted to ask Bush the same set of questions.

Re: From the department of False Equivalency

JK — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 21:12:38 -0000

Howard Kurtz is a fake, fraud, phony, and a weasel. His column and his tv show are an atrocity and an abomination.

Coates is dead wrong. There is no equivalence at all between Olbermann and Hannity.

Olberman may occassionally get a bit carried away with his commentaries, but he deals in the world of facts. Hannity deals in the world of lies. Hannity and Colmes is a putrid cesspool of a program.

Re: From the department of False Equivalency

False equivalency — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 19:10:45 -0000

There's still giant-sized Sarah Palin hanging down from a noose in West Hollywood, and liberals (if they mention it at all) are comparing it to calling Obama a "redistributor."

False equivalency?

Re: From the department of False Equivalency

John Henry — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 17:48:11 -0000

Kurtz intellectually dishonest. He's hiding behind his presumably "objective" piece. I would say Hannity is intellectually dishonest, but he doesn't have a brain. What's the word for him? Presstitute - reporting talking points as news for gain.

Re: From the department of False Equivalency

Nate — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 17:42:38 -0000

That was my thought exactly, SpottieOttie ... heck, at least Obama has publicly acknowledged these things in print. I don't think I've ever seen such a statement from GWB.

Re: From the department of False Equivalency

SpottieOttieDopaliscious — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 17:31:14 -0000

Hannity's questions are valid I suppose, presuming he asked Bush the same ones eight years ago...

Re: From the department of False Equivalency

tinisoli — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 16:59:28 -0000

My favorite Hannity trick: While spewing forth some bullshit about liberalism or Obama or whatever else he wants to eradicate, he'll hold up a handful of papers as though the papers are evidence that what he's saying must be coming from some reputable source that he's just printed out and read. Meanwhile, the guy is a college drop-out...

Re: From the department of False Equivalency

Guest — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 16:36:42 -0000

"It is apparant that neither Olbermann nor his viewers are interested in being open minded."

That's far too harsh and a bit silly actually.

Yes Olbermann is slanted to the left by a noticeable degree. But you have absolutely no idea what all of his viewers are interested in.

I fancy myself a centrist Democrat, liberal on most issues but conservative on a few. I vote for Democrats about 95% of the time but my Republican votes have been for positions as prominent as a U.S. Senate race. I watch more "Hardball" than I do "Countdown", particularly in non-election years. But once the truly partisan atmosphere kicked off in the late spring, (once the primaries were all but over), Mr. Olberman presents a forceful and articulate case for the left's positions. I couldn't take him every day, year in and year out...but every two-to-four years there is a place for someone like him. The echo chamber is only intellectually destructive if you stay in it 24/7, 365. But a month before election day??? You've had your BBC or NPR dinner, now have your MSNBC desert.

Now maybe I'm not the typical "Countdown" viewer. But I'm all for being opened-minded and carefully making political decisions. I'd never let a talking head of any orientation influence me enough to make my choice for me. I come to my own conclusions. But once you've made your decision and your candidate's opponents tosses around charges of "being a socialist" and "paling around with terrorists".....there's no point in trying to listen to both sides of the story. Intelligent discourse has broken down, the only thing left to do is have your opinion and make that choice.

Re: From the department of False Equivalency

Ginger Joe — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 16:22:19 -0000

In terms of partisan hackery:

Hannitty > O'Reilly > Limbaugh > Beck > Olbermann

They're all in the business of finding facts to back up their opinions - however, the worst of the lot is so bad compared to the rest as to make it a difference of kind, rather than degree.

Also, Hannitty's tight-lipped frown is the spitting image of Jeff Dunham's Crotchety Old Man puppet.

Re: From the department of False Equivalency

cd — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 15:55:08 -0000

Kieth's problem is that his show has become a bit too rant filled and personal. Though I largely agree with his rants, it can get old because there are literally no dissenting opinions on his show. Not that dissenting opinions are in and of themselves necessary (especially when the dissenting opinion is really really dumb), but it would be a more enjoyable hour if we could see Keith debate/take down people on the Right, instead of simply making comments and asking questions to Wolfe/Alter/Feinman ect. when we already know what their responses will be.

But yea, no doubt Howie's eqivalency is absurd.

Re: From the department of False Equivalency

TH — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 15:44:42 -0000

Respectable people need to refuse to interview with Hannity or O'Reilly.

Re: From the department of False Equivalency

Joel — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 15:43:43 -0000

Colbert is the best pundit on mainstream television, bar none. His refusal to let Frum off the hook during his appearance last week was a good example of why I like him so much.

Re: From the department of False Equivalency

DougEFresh — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 15:43:37 -0000

I am not at my work computer, but here is the link to Greenwald; it isn't quite portrayed as you stated, including the reference to the Third Reich. Last I checked, that was a Nazi reference.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/26/olbermann/

So please don't tell me to pay attention, especially when you aren't.

There are quite a few inaccuracies on Olbermannwatch and Daily Howler. I can pass them on later if you are interest.

Re: From the department of False Equivalency

Asher — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 15:37:49 -0000

No, ed, the FISA flap was a profile in wimpiness. He started floating this fantasy scenario where Obama runs around prosecuting the telecoms after he gets elected. Nevermind that the statute of limitations expires in a few months and it's next to impossible because to be criminally liable they'd have to have mens rea, that is, they'd have to know they're breaking the law, and since the White House told them that they weren't they'd basically have a full defense to any criminal prosecution an Obama DOJ might try to bring against them.

Re: From the department of False Equivalency

OGWiseman — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 15:30:58 -0000

This is exactly the kind of thing that drives me out of my fucking mind.

Re: From the department of False Equivalency

ed — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 15:30:36 -0000

Also, if you read Olbermann's critics, you will see he can be sloppy with the facts.

Examples? Links? Anything of substance?

After Obama voted for it, the bill was a savior of the 4th Amendment.

Not true. Olbermann backed off his fascism references (not Nazi references, it's an important distinction) but was still opposed to Obama's vote. After receiving a ton of criticism about not speaking up, Olbermann did comment, unfavorably, on Obama's FISA vote.

Please pay attention.

Re: From the department of False Equivalency

anon — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 15:25:43 -0000

coming from a moderate perspective (not to liberal not to conservative), I can recogize that both Hannity & Olbermann have bias. With Olbermann, yeah sometimes it can get a little old, especially when he lobbies softballs (ditto on Rachel Madden... I actually like Chris Matthews a lot). I think Olbermann and Maddow are unapologetically liberal and their shows are touted as "left-leaning" or "liberal" shows.

CNN isn't too bad but I feel like they don't really DO anything except spit out talking points from both sides and rely on pudits. I have a friend who works in cable news media and he said the change happened way back in the day when "reporters" stopped writing their stories... and just started reading the reports of hired writers.

I cannot watch Hannity & Colmes. The show is offensive. When they brought Andy Martin on, I was shocked. The article you cite underplays how vile a person Andy Martin is... he's so crazy that he had to legally change his name so people wouldn't recognize him as the same insane person. And to hear Hannity defend that? Ugh, gross. I was extremely disturbed by his "investigative report" on Obama. He relied on information that's been debunked and laughable evidence by Jerome Corsi (another nut). Maybe if Hannity marketed himself as the Fox News Rush Limbaugh I could take him seriously. But when he starts spouting that "fair and balanced" crap... womp womp.

I will say - Colbert has made it much easier for me to tolerate people like Rush, Hannity, and O'Reilly (and I think O'Reilly and Rush are self-aware... I think Hannity is insane). They're caricatures. I just worry about the people and fanatics who take every word they say as gospel.

As an aside - what's all this talk about reinstating the fairness doctrine? I may despise Hannity & Rush, but that seems like a bit much. It'd also affect liberal media outlets... would just seem like censorship across the board, no?

(Pelosi and Kerry said they supported bringing back the doctrine, Obama & McCain oppose it).

Re: From the department of False Equivalency

DougEFresh — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 15:25:43 -0000

Olbermann isn't quite the beacon of honesty as he is being portrayed by some here. See Glenn Greenwald's review of Olby's performance on FISA. Before Obama was for immunity, Olbermann made Nazi references in regard to the legislation. After Obama voted for it, the bill was a savior of the 4th Amendment.

Also, if you read Olbermann's critics, you will see he can be sloppy with the facts.

The mainstreamers on Countdown aren't invited to dissent, but to echo Olbermann. The importance of having opposing views on a show is so someone can call the host on his bullshit from time to time. It is apparant that neither Olbermann nor his viewers are interested in being open minded.

Re: From the department of False Equivalency

Rich — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 15:24:34 -0000

I'm with Andrea's first posting, even if Andrea no longer is. Olbermann and Hannity are structurally similar more than they're different. Kurtz is pointing that out, but his quotes let everyone see that one is completely scurrilous and deranged while the other is anchored in stuff that actually happens. I don't have a big problem with the snippet.

Re: From the department of False Equivalency

Asher — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 15:11:59 -0000

I agree that Olbermann isn't as bad as Hannity, and that that quote doesn't compare to Hannity's at all - very weak equivalence there - but it's a little odd to me that he opened with that quote, since he had others in his article that were a lot more partisan. And many others even more partisan that he didn't use at all. Take that crazy Special Comment he gave on Hillary's RFK remark. Now, whatever you think Hillary was trying to say, you have to admit that this was insane:

**This** is **un**-forgivable, because this nation's deepest shame, its most enduring horror, its most terrifying legacy, is political assassination.

Lincoln.

Garfield.

McKinley.

Kennedy...

I could think of about fifty deeper shames, starting with slavery, segregation, and what we did to the Indians. Even something like failing to let in the Jews who were trying to escape from Nazi Germany is a far bigger shame than our history of political assassination. I mean, come on. Garfield? Right, the death of Garfield is our nation's most terrifying legacy. Slavery doesn't hold a candle to James Garfield getting shot. It's about the nuttiest comment I've ever heard on cable news, but the thing about it is that he jumped off this rhetorical cliff for the sole purpose of demonizing Hillary (look, the bitch invoked our nation's deepest shame, our most terrifying legacy!) just because, for reasons that remain a little mysterious to me, he and the network had decided that Obama was their man.

Re: From the department of False Equivalency

Andrea — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 15:11:12 -0000

In effort to redeem myself:

I don't think it's useful to compare Hannity and Olbermann. Hannity is ignoramus and provides zero value to any discussion. He takes a relatively untrue talking point and drains any shred of truth from it while ferociously aggrandizing its falsities. He then takes said talking point and adds it to his mixed bag of deranged, vial sundries. This shit bag of nonsense and hysteria is often terrifying.

Olbermann sometimes overreaches to make his point, which diminishes his point. But he redeems himself by often being the only journalist on any major news or cable news network to run the story that needs to be run. If it weren't for Olbermann, I would have lost my mind in the early days of the Iraq war. His voice is essential, but he could boost his credibility by dropping some of the silly partisanship.

Kurtz could have written an article on the merits of the content of both shows, but instead chose to be lazy by skipping that and pointing out the obvious: both guys are ideological pundits. Well, that's a good place to start.

Re: From the department of False Equivalency

frankie d — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 15:09:23 -0000

unfortunately kurtz is still on cnn.

reliable sources. 7 am (pacific time) sunday mornings.

i only occasionally watch it. i always tune in to see if he will even touch on something that is particularly damaging to republicans.

he always uses the method i described above, to mitigate any damage a real discussion might have.

he really must think people are stupid, imagining that he can do what he does without people being aware of his inconsistency.

Re: From the department of False Equivalency

Sharon — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 15:08:24 -0000

Kurtz is just being Kurtz. He uses his false equivalence, everybody-does-it-set-up to print a damaging meme about a democrat. Hannity's fevered rhetoric about coke-head Obama isn't getting enough play in the MSM, so Howard finds a way to plant that story in front of a wider audience.

It's dishonest and stupid, but that's my Howard!

Re: From the department of False Equivalency

Ted G. — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 15:06:14 -0000

Rainy,

I understand where you're coming from, but, with due respect, and as someone who enjoys watching Olbermann, I would offer you this caveat:

The salient difference, I see, between Olbermann, and, say, Brit Hume, is that Olbermann is open and honest about his bias. He doesn't hide his views.