[besson3c]

I'm not a TV guy at all, I know very little about Maddow, I've only seen a few clips of hers, but those that I have I've been fairly impressed with her seemingly sharp intellect, or at least the appearance of this.

Who in the Conservative world compares? I'd like to search for some video of some reasoned analysis and debate, but every exposure I've had to Conservative media has left me unimpressed.... O'Reilly: too aggressive, too much of a blowhard, too confrontational, Hannity: too annoying and pig headed, Glen Beck: too moronic (e.g. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_182933.html), Limbaugh: more of the same.

Yes, my own bias and political belief certainly shapes my dislike of the aforementioned, but I'd really like a softer toned, thoughtful, intellectual source of news - like something you might hear on PBS or something rather than the "edgy" grandstanding type of fluffy bullshit on Fox, ya know what I mean?

So, who do you listen to, or is there little on TV worth checking out? Who do you like in other mediums other than TV that fits this bill?

I think I know which direction this thread will go in, but hopefully it will take at least a few posts before normalcy sets in.

[hyteckit]

I love Rachael Maddow. She is awesome.

Her equivalent? Don't know. Maybe Sean Hannity?

[besson3c]

Here was the last Maddow clip that I liked, her going after Colin Powell:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_182445.html

[hyteckit]

I was thinking Joe Scarborough. I always mixed up Joe Scarborough with Sean Hannity.

Those two white guys are too similar. Haha...

[besson3c]

Her going after an Obama Treasury Secretary pick:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_181692.html

[besson3c]

Wasn't Scarborough hte guy attacking Stewart over his confrontation with Cramer? It was mostly more confrontation, not much of an argument made IIRC...

[chris v]

Glenn Beck.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by chris v 

Glenn Beck.

Haha... Glenn Beck is nothing like Maddow.

Glenn Beck is a fear monger with nothing but exaggerations and conspiracy theories. His show isn't even news.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Haha... Glenn Beck is nothing like Maddow.

Glenn Beck is a fear monger with nothing but exaggerations and conspiracy theories. His show isn't even news.

Okay, then. Who's your nominee for her intellectual equivalent? Joe the fake Plumber? Perhaps if the right-wing in this country hadn't been so ardently anti-intellectual for the last 20 years, they might have some names to put on that list.

It's really galling - I know it's a form of pandering, but what is so bad about knowing things? Why does that make a person evil? I thought Americans were supposed to work hard, go to school, and make successes out of themselves, but to hear Sarah Palin tell it, that makes you an elitist Anti-American Ivory-tower dweller. The Republicans purposely went for the uneducated voter by vilifying the educated, while trying their best to make sure that there were as many uneducated voters as possible by vilifying the education system itself, both in the media and through legislation.

So, that leaves them with... Glenn Beck. They sorta dug this hole themselves.

[besson3c]

hyteckit: I think that maybe chris v was speaking tongue-in-cheek?

[besson3c]

Okay, so all of the usual charges that the media is Liberal bias...

This may or may not be true, but I always say that the greater problem is that they are bottom feeding bias, lacking substance. All you have to do is watch Jon Stewart from time to time to see clips of CNN obsessing over fashion and fussing over information vacuums, or Stewart lampooning any other cable news channel to see this.

But, let's say that the media is Liberal biased... Is this because there is no market for a conservative Maddow equivalent, or because there simply isn't somebody available to take on this sort of role?

[besson3c]

A great example of what I'm talking about:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...ichelle-obama/

WTF cares? This is just about as silly as the discussion in the other thread about the most appropriate way to pay respect to foreign leaders.

[subego]

In order of personal preference...

Buckley: dead.
Buchanan: batshit but honest.
Blankley: haven't seen on TV lately.
Snow: dead.

I only genuinely like(d) the first two.

[Ghoser777]

I like Blankley - he's oN Left, Right, and Center a lot (I like him the best out of the three other people on the show).

[subego]

What station is that on? I haven't seen him since he left McLaughlin.

I do sort of like him, I just don't think he's as much of a straight shooter as the first two.

He is however, an excellent dresser.

[Ghoser777]

It's on KCRW - I get the podcast of their show every Friday.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Is this because there is no market for a conservative Maddow equivalent, or because there simply isn't somebody available to take on this sort of role?

I think it's a little of both. there seems to be a huge market for Bill O'reilly, Rush Limbagh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter & Glenn Beck. As to my point above, when your whole political ideology has eschewed education & knowledge as some sort of BAD THING, you've created the void, and also created the demand for the opinion-based, hate-filled, ideology-driven rhetoric that stands in the place of educated and reasoned commentary.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Haha... Glenn Beck is nothing like Maddow.

Glenn Beck is a fear monger with nothing but exaggerations and conspiracy theories. His show isn't even news.

Whatever. I've been listening to Beck since he was on in Tampa -- he's got a pretty good head on his shoulders. And he's always been willing to call the Right a bunch of liars as well as the Left. He's a little nuts on the survivalist thing now, but otherwise I can't remember catching him in an exaggeration. He's not the brightest, but he's honest and pretty good with connecting the dots.

Also, another similarity is that he ALSO sleeps with a woman. As far as we know, I mean.

[BadKosh]

Libs have a problem with getting the FACTS right, and not spinning or ignoring important parts of the story. The libs who listen think they have found some new intellect, while they just keep repeating the same old party BS. Why is it you never hear of them accurately putting a subject in historical perspective, or providing the history behind a story? This seems to be universally true of all the lib news readers and opinion-as-fact commentators. Listen to the words and phrases in their programs and you will notice this as well.

[ebuddy]

Hannity? I honestly don't understand personally how Hannity has become so popular. Sometimes I think he's actually more popular among the left for a whipping boy than he is to the right.

As for the rest of them including Limbaugh, Savage, Beck, O'Reilly, et. al; they are wildly popular because they're funny as hell (Beck's radio program can be absolutely hilarious, trust me) and they speak to the perception of their listeners in countering the noisy voices of disagreement. It's really just that simple. Personally, I used to love Ken Hamblin. Miss his syndicated show greatly.

I was getting a kick out of watching the banter in this thread however. It began with a poster asking for a softer-toned, intellectual source of news followed by; "yeah! (enter Conservative host name here) is a total blowhard poop-butt stinky face!!!" What do you suppose it is these Conservative hosts are countering? For the most part from what I've seen, conservatives aren't nearly as compelled to remind you of their personal views at every single opportunity available to them relevant or not and they are much less inclined to incite hostile rhetoric in doing so. i.e. they are generally more softer-toned, intellectual, and mind to themselves. Conservative personalities are successful because it's nice to have someone else do the dirty work for you; the otherwise silent majority.

Anti-education? Not so much. The Conservative personalities I've heard find using your position as an educator as a platform for activism most reprehensible. I've always had much more respect for a professor who left you wondering exactly what their personal political preferences were. This is too often not the case with the self-indulgent, moronic, hard-toned, edgy, grandstanding fluffy BS recorded in classrooms across the country on a daily basis.

[Macrobat]

Mary Katherine Ham, Julie Banderas, Megyn Kelly, Gretchen Carlson, Greta Van Susteryn, Laurie Dhue, Michelle Malkin, Laura Ingraham.

Especially Michelle Malkin - always has her "ducks in a row"

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Libs have a problem with getting the FACTS right, and not spinning or ignoring important parts of the story. The libs who listen think they have found some new intellect, while they just keep repeating the same old party BS. Why is it you never hear of them accurately putting a subject in historical perspective, or providing the history behind a story? This seems to be universally true of all the lib news readers and opinion-as-fact commentators. Listen to the words and phrases in their programs and you will notice this as well.

If you intend to make such a bold generalization like this you ought to attempt to substantiate it, don't you think? Otherwise, how can we respond to this?

[BadKosh]

Why not actually LISTEN TO THEIR WORDS?

[besson3c]

Who is "they"? What words? What about subjectivity? Is it safe and accurate to make generalizations like this?

Make your argument, your reader is not going to make it for you.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Hannity? I honestly don't understand personally how Hannity has become so popular. Sometimes I think he's actually more popular among the left for a whipping boy than he is to the right.

I don't understand that either. I've been listening to Hannity since AM750, and back then he at least knew his limitations. He's a complete blowhard these days, and an empty shell. I can't stand the guy.

If the future of the conservative movement depends on either Limbaugh or Hannity, we're f*cked as a nation. Limbaugh at least understands the principles he's discussing regularly, and I'm not sure Hannity really does.

[placebo1969]

Is Wil Wheaton conservative?

[chris v]

Meh. NN has an all-caps filter?

[vmarks]

Yes, there's an all caps filter.

Also, no one has mentioned Tucker Carlson.

Carlson actually appeared on PBS for a while, hosting a show there. That seems to be one of the suggested requirements by the thread starter.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Who is "they"? What words? What about subjectivity? Is it safe and accurate to make generalizations like this?

Make your argument, your reader is not going to make it for you.

Well, DUH! Why not pick ANY of the mainstream liberal opinion readers and LISTEN? The problem is not specific to just one or two news readers. Start with Katie Couric. Listen to a Pacifica radio station. Listen to NPR, and listen to their words carefully. Of course it helps to know the subject matter so you will know when they are lying, spinning, or repeating urban legends as fact.

[besson3c]

Given that Couric and everybody in NPR that I'm aware of do interviews and not editorials, some examples will be needed if you'd like me to fully understand the basis of your point. Keep in mind what I was refuting:

This seems to be universally true of all the lib news readers and opinion-as-fact commentators.

If you cannot prove that all news readers do this, then this generalization is false.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by placebo1969 

Is Wil Wheaton conservative?

No?

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Given that Couric and everybody in NPR that I'm aware of do interviews and not editorials, some examples will be needed if you'd like me to fully understand the basis of your point.

The editorial is mixed in with 'news'. Its a BIAS. SPIN. Leaving out important details, adding in mis-understood parts. Propaganda.

[besson3c]

Okay. I'm not sure what kind of response you are expecting since you have not really provided any debatable substantive content to your post, but I thank you for sharing your opinion?

[besson3c]

So, how do moderate Republicans feel about Maddow? Is she respected or loathed?

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Okay. I'm not sure what kind of response you are expecting since you have not really provided any debatable substantive content to your post, but I thank you for sharing your opinion?

So you are saying you can't tell between factual reporting and spin? How about the coverage by the MSM of the tea party protests? did you notice the grade school attitudes, and the way it was covered? If you aren't sophisticated enough to see these differences then I suggest that you aren't qualified to discuss it.

[besson3c]

I don't watch the MSM, you are making the mistake in thinking that I'm defending them or are prepared to (or even that I disagree with you). I'm just trying to get you to make an argument we can actually discuss rather than just sharing with us what may simply be your gut feelings. If I wanted to hear a bunch of gut feelings I might pay attention to the MSM!

[subego]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Especially Michelle Malkin - always has her "ducks in a row"

As someone who wrote In Defense of Internment, and teed-off on "anchor babies", these are apparently ignorant, hypocritical, populist ducks.

In a cage.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I don't watch the MSM, you are making the mistake in thinking that I'm defending them or are prepared to (or even that I disagree with you). I'm just trying to get you to make an argument we can actually discuss rather than just sharing with us what may simply be your gut feelings. If I wanted to hear a bunch of gut feelings I might pay attention to the MSM!

OK, lets just say it's an ongoing problem with opinions as news broadcasts. I feel the proof is in the watching. Every day more BS is blathered out by the left on many levels from the idiot White House Press Sec'y, to Pacifica radios' editorial nonsense, to Katie Courics nose up 0bamas butt broadcasts, to the immature style of Tea Party coverage, etc etc etc. Its DAILY Propaganda.

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by subego 

As someone who wrote In Defense of Internment, and teed-off on "anchor babies", these are apparently ignorant, hypocritical, populist ducks.

In a cage.

Well, since she's Asian and would have been interred herself if alive then, exactly what is your point? Did you READ the book and digest her argument or simply go by the title or what the talking heads said?

And "teed-off on anchor babes" = presented valid arguments to vacuousness.

I would say anyone who would attack her arguments based on hearsay more closely ressembles what you claim than she, herself does - point of fact - no one has actually proven her wrong on any of your "points."

Your unsubstantiated claim as to the ducks is noted.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Well, since she's Asian and would have been interred herself if alive then, exactly what is your point?

Huh? No. Only if she's Japanese.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Well, since she's Asian and would have been interred herself if alive then, exactly what is your point?

[facepalm]

They were Japanese internment camps, she's Filipino.

Edit: scooped.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

And "teed-off on anchor babes" = presented valid arguments to vacuousness.

[Facepalm numero dos]

She's an "anchor baby".

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by subego 

[Facepalm numero dos]

She's an "anchor baby".

She is? So she believes she should be deported back to the Philippines?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

WTF? Are this about anchor babies (IE: citizen children of illegal immigrants had for the purpose of 'anchoring' the illegal parents in the US) or Anchor BABES- the term for female MSN TV newscasters from whom we can usually expect the aforementioned vacuousness?

I'm not aware that Malkin is either.

[subego]

Babies. I thought Macrobat had misspelled it, otherwise I would have clarified.

If it only applies to illegal immigrants, then she's using the term wrong. She explicitly refers to legal non-citizens.

Originally Posted by Michelle Malkin

During my book tour across the country for Invasion, this issue came up time and again. In the Southwest, everyone has a story of heavily pregnant women crossing the Mexican border to deliver their "anchor babies." At East Coast hospitals, tales of South Korean "obstetric tourists" abound. (An estimated 5,000 South Korean anchor babies are born in the US every year). And, of course, there's a terrorism angle.

[stumblinmike]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Mary Katherine Ham, Julie Banderas, Megyn Kelly, Gretchen Carlson, Greta Van Susteryn, Laurie Dhue, Michelle Malkin, Laura Ingraham.

Especially Michelle Malkin - always has her "ducks in a row"

Now THESE are anchor babes..not a thought in their purdy heads...but definite eyecandy for the hillbilly's that view Fox.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by subego 

If it only applies to illegal immigrants, then she's using the term wrong. She explicitly refers to legal non-citizens.

She's misusing the term, applying it to South Korean tourists, unless they're overstaying their visas. (Really, is that some huge problem, and specifically South Koreans??)

Also, I don't get the 'terrorism' angle, but then, I suspect she was alluding to a separate point (that none of the open-borders dimwits knows or cares exactly who is coming across the border, or for what purpose, including possibly terrorism).

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by stumblinmike 

Now THESE are anchor babes..not a thought in their purdy heads...but definite eyecandy for the hillbilly's that view Fox.

Well if nothing else it gives the tolerant, sexist left something to talk about. For anyone that'll listen of course.

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by stumblinmike 

Now THESE are anchor babes..not a thought in their purdy heads...but definite eyecandy for the hillbilly's that view Fox.

Gee, 4 are lawyers, 3 have master's degrees, one is an ex-judge . . .

But I guess we see your point. That being "They disagree with me, so they MUST be stupid."

Too bad you simply demonstrate the opposite with that post, huh?

[besson3c]

Why do stupid comments like stumblinmike's become the basis of generalizations for everyone here?