Al Franken, Eric Alterman, Tucker, & Ingraham on NOW (12 AM ET Sun)

[Khephra]

CSPAN2 from 1/11/04

[greyl]

1. cspan2, Thanks!

nuf of this MaxX shit.

http://www.c-span.org/watch/cspan2_rm.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS2

[Khephra]

2. Thanks for catching that!

:hi:

[TacticalPeek]

3. LW, RW, two by two.

Franken already owns Carlson in ten minutes, before his own first turn.

I would expect this to be a funny and interesting thing.

Franken rules.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Khephra]

5. They're there because it's a book-tv event

All of them have new(ish) books out, so that's probably why they're together. (Alterman has a new one on Bush coming out next month)

What's strange is that I can actually deal with Tucker and Laura in this format. I don't agree with them, but they're sure acting more like human beings than they normally do on tv.

[Khephra]

6. Errrr...I spoke too soon

They're starting to get rather heated now.

[TacticalPeek]

8. Heat can be ok,

of course hear Laura goes there over-defensively and in a humor deficit v. Franken and Alterman. And Carlson. And the emcee.

[TacticalPeek]

7. Agreed. I think the big big difference is two-fold.

1. No commercials, interruptions, no "hard" breaks stopping a sentence in mid-thought.

2. No evil-doers talking in their earpieces.


Makes it closer to like a baseball game: play til its over. As opposed perhaps to timed event sports, angling for the last shot, slap, kick.

[TacticalPeek]

9. Of course, in a format where you can go on and on,

sometimes you do go on and on.

[Cleita]

10. Wow, Tucker said many reporters didn't like Gore??

So that's why they gave him unfavorable coverage but voted for him anyway? Wierd.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

11. I want to punch Tucker Carlson

he spins and spins and spins and never addresses the real issues. Typical repuke.

:puke:

[kaitykaity]

14. And punch him and punch him and punch him.

Smarmy little bastard. His insulting comments about
the Great Paul Krugman really pissed me off.

:grr::mad::grr:

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kaitykaity]

18. It's really sad to see so much bullshit packed into

so few words.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bozita]

12. Will this be available for viewing later?

hoping...

[Khephra]

16. It's on tomorrow at 12:50 pm et

:-)

[TacticalPeek]

13. Kick.

[dennis4868]

15. Did Alterman say....

that perhaps Bush was not lying about the WMD in Iraq? I may be wrong but I thought I heard Eric Alterman say that we don't know if the President intentionally gave the Congress misleading information. What Eric Alterman should have said when questioned by Ingraham that on what evidence is there that Bush lied, Alterman could have said many things like:

1. Aluminum tubes from Niger was mentioned in the President's State of the Union Speech when the White House knew for a year that was false;

2. Yes, Clinton believed that Iraq had some WMD but Bush went much further not based on any intelligence reports in that we could be bombed in 45 minutes.

Furthermore, the amount of WMD the White House kept saying there was in Iraq was very different than what Clinton said in 1998 Through all of this the CIA was telling the White House that the inelligence is not clear in this area. The White believed only the information they got that was in their favor to attack Iraq and ignored all other evidence.

SO YES BUSH LIED and was not straight with the American people!

[priller]

22. But, they have "deniability" on so much of this

Like the aluminum tubes, they can always point to a few supposed "experts" in the government that claimed they could be used for nuclear processing.

And the yellowcake from Niger, they can always claim that the British thought it was legit.

But, in both cases, there were many people, probably the majority, who knew they were bogus. Whether the idiot chimp knew of this, I doubt it. After reading O'Neill, it's apparent that Cheney and Rove keep a very tight leash on the info that reaches Bush.

I think the majority of the lies by the admin on Iraq were told by taking iffy, best-guess intelligence data and turning them into absolute, there-is-no-doubt, type of public statements.

[dennis4868]

23. Only way to know for sure....

is to have a honest inquiry as to what did Bush know and when did he know it. I think it is wrong to simply assume that Bush was out of the loop in decieving based on Suskind/O'Neill's books. Why does Bush always get the benefit of the doubt?

[many a good man]

31. BS, I was disappointed

The "Uncovered" documentary shows beyond doubt that all these allegations lacked substance. I was disappointed that Alterman and Franken didn't point to this evidence, to all the leaks that came out from intelligence sources during the run up to the war. The right wing bias in all major media is shown by their failure to follow up and publicize this information.

It was a good show, but we could have done better...

[0007]

21. Thank you

Thought your timming was a little off until I looked at the date - Show will be on today (Sunday) 1:00 pm est.

[Lefty48197]

24. Great comment by Alterman

He said that liberal journalists are journalists first. Conservative 'journalists' are conservatives first.
He hit the nail right on the head.
Of course, Tucker immediately shifted into self defense mode and kept crying, "I'm a journalist I'm a journalist I'm a journalist. That's a ridiculous statement".
You hit the nail right on the head Eric. Keep up the good work.

[suegeo]

35. Tucker is a journalist?

I don't believe that statement. Does he ever do straight news reporting, where both sides are presented? any investigative stuff that presents many different view points? Perhaps he has, I could be wrong, as I don't watch CNN much anymore.

If I had to label bow-tie boy, I'd say he is a conservative pundit, a conservative tool, or something like that.

Why does he get to label himself a journalist?

[kodi]

25. saw it, disappointed in it. franken and alterman looked almost drunk

let's face it, having seen and read both franken and atlternman's works i would have expected that these two would have humiliated their mediocre talented opponents.

they didn't, and they let their opponents off the hook repeatedly. alterman has a hard-on about bush being deceptive but would not go the full way to call bush a blatant and willful liar. he blinked when he could have pulled the trigger on bush's criminal activities in this.

also, neither franken or alterman even attepted to mention the real bias, that being the selective editorialized of what constitutes news to satisfy sponsors.

i know both franken and atlterman recognize this and both discussed such bias in their recent books, but i was surprised that they did so poorly in stating with vigor their case of media bias.

seriously, any avid evil DUer has probably done a better job in describing media bias to friends over a cup of java than franken and alterman did last night.

franken did get in a number of funny and cheap shots, but i am beginning to believe he has a fixation on faux news.

[otohara]

26. Alterman Has A Bad Habit of Twirling

his hair. When "What Liberal Media" came out, I waited and actually watched for the first time Bill O'Really - Alterman was on last and damn i was so disappointed. O'Really chewed him up and spit him out. I wrote Alterman a e-mail - he wrote back and said "calm down" - So I did!

[Eric J in MN]

28. Does Alterman literally twirl his hair or is that an expression? nt

nt

[buycitgo]

29. who cares?

I listened; didn't watch, so that aspect is immaterial.....reminded me of those who listened, vs. watched the Nixon/Kennedy debates

watch/listen yourself today.

see what you think

my impression is that the pugshills comported themselves VERY poorly, had almost no support for their assertions, resorting to namecalling, interruption, repetition as their arsenal.

A and F could have done better, but the other two were there own worst enemies.

they even contradicted the central theme of the "debate" by ceding the fact that the press basically reported exactly what the admin spewed out during the runup, saying, basically, it was too much EFFORT to check for factuality.

Franken dealt with that nicely, WRT aluminum tubes and how NOBODY bothered to ask real experts about their usage til long after the fact.

[buycitgo]

27. you're partly right, partly wrong

I listened, didn't watch, and got a different impression, simply by noticing how often those two shills interrupted A and F, very often with insultingly asinine adhoms.

they came across as extremely, aggressively, arrogantly ignorant

IOW, typical pugs

Franken did mention publisher bias, citing the 55% of newspapers being owned by pugs, or maybe that was the ratio of Bush endorsements.

got it on tape; will check.

Franken relied too often on oft-repeated, canned snips from his book.
effective for those that haven't heard them by now. but both A and F sounded much more in control of the facts, AND themselves than those mendacious twits.

Carlson painted himself into a corner with his ridiculous rant about liberal reporters HATING Gore, but voting for him.

how come the coverage was so antiGore, then? isn't that an inherent contradiction? Pew polls taken during, after the election clearly reflect media bias in terms of favorable coverage for Bush.

too bad either A or F didn't cite those numbers

[kodi]

30. franken's reference was editorial pages supporting bush, not skewed new

the difference was illustrated, but not connected by alterman's remarks later on how conservative press outlets are conservative first, both in editorial outlook as well as slanting of the front page news while those accused of liberal bias might show liberal outlook on the editotial page but they are more objective with issues on the front page.

inghram's counter-remarks about the manipulation by liberal bias of the front page of the NY times with the reporter saying bush declared "imminent" an attack by iraq does not hold water upon close scrutiny, and franken dealt with it almost well, but it is exactly what the right wing press media does, especially sciafe, murdoch, and moon run press media.

[buycitgo]

32. yep

the 'imminent' meme was one of their big tactics, complaining that he 'never said that EXACT word,' as if it mattered, given the constant barrage of verbiage designed to create precisely that impression

I didn't think they were able to do as good of a job as they could have......they were shouted down all through that, though, so it's hard to tell what either of them woulda said had they been able to complete a sentence.

also, I KNOW somebody linked an actual quote where Bush DID use the word "imminent," and NOT in the context of before SH becomes an imminent threat.

it wasn't widely publicized, of course, and the dems never picked up on it, of course. needless to say, the media didn't either

anyone remember that?

will check

[buycitgo]

33. too bad they didn't have this at their disposal:

Donald Rumsfeld, testifying on September 18, 2002 before the House Armed Services Committee:

"There are a number of terrorist states pursuing weapons of mass destruction -- Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria to name but a few. But no terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq." http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/2002/s20020918-secdef2.html

so you want to split some EXTREMELY thin hairs there, you lying, pustullating sacs of excrement?



how come that wasn't used WIDELY in smacking the scumbags little rhetorical gimmick?

oops I forgot

we don't have a functioning adversary media, not to mention an adversary poLITical party

[buycitgo]

34. replay is running now, on CSPAN II

see for yourself

maybe listen, instead of watch

I get carried away, wanting to SMACK that self-satisfied smirk off TC's tiny little crain

[suegeo]

36. Fox news

I just saw the Sunday replay. Some comments:

Tucker and Laura kept parroting that Fox news only gets like 2 million viewers. I don't know if that is true or not, but I do know that the local wingnut radio station up here in Minneapolis/St. Paul (AM 1280, the Fascist) runs Fox News reports at the top of every hour (kinda like some radio stations run AP news reports at the top of the hour.) So, if you add the wingnut radio listeners who listen to fox on the radio, doesn't that extend their reach beyond 2 million??

My biggest beef with the media is the stories they don't cover, I think, on purpose. Instead of giving us background on the history of US involvement in Iraq, we get Laci Peterson or Michale Jackson. There are tons of horrifying stories that I see on the internet, that the media is too timid or too afraid or too whorish to cover.

Tucker and Laura try to laugh off the fair and balanced, and Limbaugh's drug-crazed rants as "It's all a joke and the listeners know it's a joke."

However, it isn't a joke. It's hate speech that sometimes culminates into death threats. Tom Daschle said something along that line when he mentioned the junkie pig man attacks and how he wished the pig man would tone it down, because people act on what the pig man says. Hell, ole Tom didn't even get simple death threats, someone actually tried to take him out, via antrax. Yes, people on the left really hate Ann-the-man, because she suggests that it's ok to kill liberals. What sane person wouldn't be concerned with some bitch advocating for said sane person's death?!?

And when Tucker and Laura say, that the right-wing bias is not some conspiracy, that it just happens that way, I think of the rumors that CNN employees CIA people. I get really pissed off when they smugly try to dismiss views, just because "they are conspiracy theories." It's like telling me DON'T THINK FOR YOURSELF