Thanks!

I saw that Daily News Bin story and something just exploded in my mind. Could we finally have reached the point where this is starting to stink too bad even for some of the news anchors? Are even a few of 'em starting to realize how ridiculous things have become, and how much of a leading role they've played in it? They've been nothing but enablers. It's a disgrace. And the public is being very poorly served. No wonder we have so many low-information voters out there! I think THIS is why. And I think it just might be a strategically ripe time to try to do something about it.

article and agree it is very promising but needs building on.

Amazingly in this cyber age, the screen media still depend on 1400 Nielsen families in their homes for feedback on what's working for them. If we want our positive and negative feedback to be counted, we need to send it to them. Just changing channels is about as meaningful as writing in your cat on the ballot.

Excellent!

African-American. He was a shameless apologist who ALSO tried to wiggle around and underneath her line of questioning, tried to change the subject, tried to deflect and divert and filibuster, tried to avoid the hot seat, tried to bob 'n' weave, tried to turn it back to "but Hillary Clinton ... " and she wouldn't let him get away with it, either. I couldn't grab a pen and paper fast enough to make a note of his name. She's done this again, and again, and again, and again. It seems to be a new skill that's becoming her hallmark. And it's BRILLIANT! It's FUCKING THRILLING to watch! Joy Reid is rapidly becoming my hero.

If I were her producer, I'd suggest maybe she consider adding ANOTHER weapon to her increasingly impressive arsenal of power-interview techniques: tell the obfuscater that if he/she continues to try to crowd her out vocally, tries to keep talking over her to get her to shut up and/or give up, tries to keep on filibustering and blocking and smoke-screening, that you will cut his/her mic. Message: Cooperate OR ELSE.

I'm starting to feel tempted to write a letter to NBC News/MSNBC Chairman Andrew Lack, suggesting that Joy Reid hold an in-house class on interviewing techniques. With mandatory attendance required of the likes of Chuck Todd and Andrea Mitchell. Yes. THEM. Them especially. I don't care what their professional "ranking" is or how long they've been in the business. They're way too smug and cozy and way too eager to let their subjects off easy and not force the issue. Maybe they're afraid of losing that precious "access" or something so they don't want to risk pissing anybody off. Well THERE'S one attitude that has to change, as we all learned the hard way during bush/cheney. And if the Trump campaign doesn't like it, and threatens to retaliate by yanking press credentials, SO BE IT. There are other ways to get the story and plenty of other voices crowded out, ignored, and denied exposure on these things who'd LOVE some face time for a change. And if your retaliation happens to enough news outlets, hey, pal, how'd ya like a NEWS BLACKOUT? How'd you like all that coverage and free publicity you've been getting for more than a year because we all fawn and bow and scrape and whore ourselves to you and hang on your every word - to disappear?

they're afraid the Repubs won't come back on as guests.

Some - I'm thinking of Matthews- likes to keep the race "exciting", even when someone - Trump, for ex.- has said or done something clearly wrong or over the top.

That's how Cenk got tossed at MSNBC. He was so fiery and ferocious and rough on the GOP that some of 'em in Washington whined and complained to the network about how "WAAAAAAH! They're being MEAN to MEEEEEEEE!"

Oh yeah? Well, I'd say fuck it, and fuck them if I were running things. So you're gonna "punish" us by not coming on as guests? Fuck you! Do you know how many people out there of marquee and future marquee value (since some of these new ones you can cultivate and work with and polish and make into new stars) and knowledge and eloquence and relevant viewpoints who would LOVE a shot at some face time? Fine. You stay in your offices and call Reince Preibus and pout all you want. We'll get along just fine without you! If you're not man enough to come on, if you can't take a little heat, if you're gonna wilt when the temperature rises, if you're gonna fuss like a kindergartener because you're not gonna be the only one who gets to play rough while we're forced to keep our mouths gagged and our hands tied behind our backs, if you're gonna snivel because we're not on our knees buffing your toenails for you, then fine! Too damn bad! Don't come on our air. Don't get exposure to our audience. Doesn't make any damn difference to us! Just means more exposure for more Dems!

That's what management SHOULD have said. But the NBC brass blinked. What a bad precedent that set! Now the GOP thinks it's entitled to walk all over 'em, and our spineless "news executives" and "information brokers and curators" know their proper place. SHIT! CANNOT say enough about what a bad move that was.

Our news folk got down on their knees during bush/cheney, too. And they STAYED THERE on their knees for eight miserable infuriating years. The entire industry was full of quivering little cowards that whole time. Let a whole passel of defiant, unapologetic, in-yer-face, proud-of-it certified war criminals just stroll on down the road and outta Dodge, scott-free, never held accountable, never taken to task, never forced to answer for their high crimes, hot 'n' cold running deceit, an abomination of thievery, and staggering incompetence. They all spoke with forked tongues. And the media bowed and scraped and handed them softball after softball after softball, week after week, month after month, and year after year. I kept thinking - surely THIS shit is worth impeachment proceedings! And NOTHING. NOTHING. We can hound a President 24/7 for a blow job with a fully-consenting adult. But the lying, cheating, thieving war criminals who, to begin with, STOLE their way into the job after him get away free as birds. The whole lot of 'em belong in a war crimes tribunal in The Hague. And then sent straight to prison.

She is the only one of the MSNBC crowd who is doing their job.

Networks and the reporters started reporting more on the facts and calling out the bs that politicians and their surrogates
espouse on air instead of worrying about losing "access" they would see their ratings go up significantly.

The fact that trump can threaten to ban a network and basically cow them into not doing any real reporting on him is bs. It is time that someone step up and fill the vacancy left by the Murrow's / Cronkite's and to lesser extent KO's and start doing real reporting and calling out the made up realities that mostly republicans but also dems say on air.

'Truth crushed to earth shall rise again;
The eternal years of God are hers;
But Error, wounded, writhes with pain,
And dies among his worshipers.'

are still based on a tiny number of households through Nielsen ratings, extremely inadequate, so our message of disgust, and outrage, by refusing to watch any of the trashy nightly newscasts is not getting through.

I watch/listen to the news for facts. Just report the story, give me the facts and let me make up my own mind. If you interview a political figure, also have someone from the opposition to present the other side of the argument.

Something else I'd like to see is the end of shouting matches in round table discussions. It's hard to get anything out of people yelling at each other.

And, finally, one of my pet peeves. Are the ladies required to dress like cocktail waitresses instead of professionals? I don't expect them to dress in burka or severe business suits, but some of the outfits they wear seem out of place. (Do I need to go out and shake my fist at the kids on my lawn now?)

I used to be a broadcast journalist before I retired. Mostly radio, but some TV. It used to be almost an unspoken law that women in positions of on-air credibility, like news anchors and reporters, dressed the part. You needed authority and credibility and that meant you dressed like a legitimate business woman (not the kind of "business woman" that's slang for street-walker). I mean blazers and jackets. I mean demure necklines. I mean no flashes of skin whether it be shoulders, cleavage, or legs. NO tight skirts with high hemlines. No 4-6-inch stiletto "fuck-me" shoes. You could still be PLENTY attractive and alluring and elegant, and camera-ready, even while covering up a little. You didn't have to sling your long hair over one shoulder so the other side of your neck and most-often bare shoulder and collar bone were exposed, with one of your two jazzy cocktail party earrings on display. Your subliminal message was "listen to me". NOT "come hither."

Hell, there are shows all over Pox Noise where you see one or more women splayed out on couches in front of clear lucite coffee tables, and ALL of them are dressed in tight sheaths with bare arms and shoulders and scooped or deep "V" necklines, and tight short skirts emphasizing long bare oiled legs, crossed at the knees, and the upper leg always extended straight out rather than downward close to the other one, angled toward the floor. All those legs wind up looking like open sets of fucking salad tongs. And of course, the shoes. Electric colors, wild striped and otherwise eye-catching patterns, 4-6-inch spike heels. So you can't help but gape at them. It's all over CNN and MSNBC, too. For Pete's Sake, sometimes I'd see Mika Brzezinski and wonder if she had an ongoing contest with herself as to how little she could have on, on any given morning, and still get away with it. Mika, for the Love of God, do you seriously NOT have ANYTHING in your wardrobe that at least has some sleeves?

I'm sick and tired of that prick-teasing peep-show shit and I find it irritating and nauseating and, in fact, insulting as HELL! Do we have to keep on aggressively selling sex on a NEWS show??? Seriously???? Don't we have all of prime time and late-night and daytime soaps and round-the-clock subtle commercials for that? Can't we get a break from that - at the very least, during The News, forcryingoutloud?????

which is not at all what I meant.

she is a Republican piece of work or just a Gutter Journalist piece of work.

And frankly, I don't know why. What I've seen of her so far is not terribly impressive. And I keep thinking - "okay, THIS gal has a morning-drive Monday-Friday show. Which is still fairly undistinguished, as she herself certainly seems to be. And the fearless and gutsy and un-rollable (if such be a word) Joy Reid is relegated to weekends and fill-ins? WTF?"

should be a bit part numbers man, and not hosting a show.

I can't stand watching her. She wouldn't know a lie if it hit her upside her empty head.

Last edited Sat Aug 20, 2016, 02:04 PM - Edit history (1)

A good portion of this is plain and simple lazy journalism. Or actually, not journalism at all. Just seat warmers while allowing liars to spew the bull****. And definitely--to paraphrase Bernie---Enough about the f***ing emails already!!!!

THANK YOU calimary!

I've spent the last several minutes tweeting both CNN's Martin Savidge - AND ALSO the "Reliable Sources" host, Brian Stelter - who's sometimes really excellent - A MASSIVE relief from that show's former host Howard Kurtz's ridiculous bias!

My beef this Saturday morning: A segment Savidge did, on the Trump/Pence intrusion into the Louisiana flood zone, defying a specific request from Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards that pols STAY AWAY. The governor rightly pointed out that if all you're after is a photo op, then PLEASE DON'T COME! Because roads would have to be closed, they'd impede the work of the first responders, and divert desperately needed resources and manpower while it's still crunch time and they're still searching for what they hope are survivors. Okay? The GOVERNOR issued that public plea. Trump/Pence paid NO attention.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-tours-flooded-louisiana-in-spite-of-governor’s-photo-op-admonishment/ar-BBvOP8H

The whole segment, astoundingly, was focused on how wonderful this was, how "presidential" it made Trump look, oh what an improvement for dear ol' Donald, he's turning things around, and why didn't President Obama and Hillary Clinton show up? Where were they? (Message: Obama/Hillary BAAAAAD).

I think I probably sent a combined 10 tweets to both Savidge and Stelter, questioning this angle of coverage, why there was NO mention of the governor's specific request, why President Obama and HRC BOTH cooperated, didn't intrude, and the fact that Obama had a visit already arranged for NEXT WEEK when maybe some of the emergency and life-or-death urgency had died down a little. NO mention of that. NOR was there a mention that Hillary immediately got busy behind the scenes, working the phones, asking how to best help the flood victims, which she determined, and then made public, was SEND MONEY. NO mention of any of this, AT ALL.

He JUST NOW ran a clip of Trump being asked about his visit to the flood zone and Trump saying "oh, it was incredible, amazing, incredible" --- and --- NOTHING. Not even said but clearly messaged: "well, we'll just leave it there." NO challenge. NO question. NO fact-chasing OR fact-checking. Joy Reid wouldn't have "just left it there." Joy Reid wouldn't have stood for letting that be the last word.

Joy and Lawrence work fine for me...love Joy's aggressiveness - politely pushing back..assertive - she is so well prepared...and Lawrence's calm demeanor - all the while mincemeat out of some of his guests...

The idea of twitter used to focus on Lazy Journalism is awesome....

Rachel has been on my chit list since she got all undies in a bunch over Bill Clinton using the term "girl"- but the work up she did on Bannon was great - as well as identifying the group behind the first trump AD - notorious racist group - eugenicist John Tanton Center for Immigration Studies - last night...

BTW - The woman who made that shout out about the Prez golfing instead of being in LA..me thinks she was a plant...it was too obvious that the camera was focused on her...

Be well all

Thank you calimary!

I might just start watching the news again!

and I'm doing this every chance I have. Call them out and I like to especially praise those who have the fierce interview approach that Joy Reid has. No bullshit lies for her.

tangling with these slithering and well-oiled eels. And she's somehow still able to grab them and NOT let go. They do NOT slip away and they do NOT get to make their "point", how ever lame and/or pointless it might be. She's AMAZING.

I think she should have a prime time Monday through Friday show. She's the brightest bulb in the marquee right now. I think I may actually have more admiration for her than I do even for Rachel Maddow. Rachel's long been my hero because her show is like a master class in history and context, in particular, as well as spotting a soon-to-be breaking story like the Flint water poisoning, AND Chris Christie's "Bridgegate" before it even earned its "gate". But I think at least in live, on-the-spot interview skills, Joy overpowers her. Joy simply overpowers, PERIOD. With every CON who tries to word-wrestle her or flummox her. They're sunk before they even climb into the boat.

they don't get mean and call names when they disagree with a guest.

They just keep smiling and punching away.
That civility goes a long way and isn't a turn-off to the whole discussion at hand.

Couldn't agree more. Please notify the networks or the individual "reporters" and tell them what you think. I have been trying to get Rachel (at msnbc) to correct the stories about the sos email crap, but so far nothing from her. What does it take?

Thanks! Hmmmm... maybe more of us need to pile on?

I usually like what Rachel does on her show. One of her finest moments was when she went completely to the opposite side of the planet with the guy I enjoy referring to as "the Kentucky pipsqueak" Rand Paul. She had him on awhile ago - well before the campaign. I think it may even have been either when he was campaigning for Senate or had recently won a seat there.

She voiced pleasure that here was one rare CON who had agreed to come on her show, as most of them don't. Okay, so, one point for Rand with the kitchen curly scrub pad on his head. She asked him about a question regarding civil rights and the failure of businesses to serve African Americans. Should they be forced by law to get over themselves and their stupid-ass Neanderthal prejudices and just Serve The Customer, regardless of color (I'm putting lots of my own bias in here - she didn't frame it so blatantly that way)? Rand with his idiot "nobody tells me what to do, especially not the government" worldview started avoiding. Bobbing and weaving. Wiggling all over it trying not to get any on him. Making all kinds of dodges and excuses and other bullshit. She wouldn't let him go.

I'm sure she had a list of well-researched questions ready to go, but this encounter made her think - "screw that! I'm onto something here!" For the rest of the segment - which went on for a LONG time - she did not let go. She came at him again and again and again about that. To hell with whatever other questions were on her list. Screw that. It was no longer important. THIS was. He was insisting, rather uncomfortably as she inched toward trying to pin him down, that he wouldn't use the government to compel any business to serve anyone the business didn't want to serve, which included Black customers, in particular, but also presumably Latino customers, or gay customers, or maybe even Muslim customers (although that wasn't quite the hot-button thing at the time of that interview, as it is now). She threw out the whole list of questions and stayed on this.

I was flabbergasted! SO proud of her! That was one of my pet peeves as an interviewer, watching other interviewers. You hit on one point, but BY JOVE you've got all those other questions on your list that you think you need to get to, so never mind that your subject just came out, or called the President a Communist, or admitted to raping his now ex-girlfriend whom he kicked to the curb after having knocked her up. Or some such thing. "My next question is..." FUCK THE NEXT QUESTION! Go after the bigger thing you just inadvertently stumbled into!

So ordinarily I am favorably predisposed toward Rachel's interview style. She usually gets stuff right. But nobody's perfect. HOWEVER, that said, if they're on camera, with their own show, in a high-profile position where they're able to influence millions of viewers - like Monday-Friday and/or prime time, seems to me you owe it to truth, genuinely good journalism, and honestly and completely informing the people, to strive - HARD - to come as close to perfect as possible. Seems to me, you have an obligation if you're blessed like that. You're OBLIGATED. PARTICULARLY when one of the most urgent problems we have, today, is an ill-informed electorate!!!

Damn, so well written! Bravo!

It's the best way to approach these people with short but to the point comments. It can work and does.

is the only one that holds the surrogates feet to the fire. How long before the bigs at MSNBC throttle her?

She had already been throttled. They cancelled her daily 2 pm show a year and a half ago and she is only on now because they dismissed Melissa Harris-Perry.

She certainly deserves it, and she's lightyears better than she even was last time she was a full-timer. I don't remember her being this ballsy in interviewing rude, obstructionist, filibustering blabbermouth CONS, and keeping them under control during her previous show. And in the process, she very often is deft enough at this that the recalcitrant guest winds up looking bad, too - shifty, dishonest, not forthcoming, disingenuous, partisan, evasive (whatcha hiding, 'eh?), and bullshitting. Which just so happens they actually ARE.

but I doubt that Phil Griffin will get up off of that. He's too much of a coward.

Am still waiting for his "flag pin" bullshit mea culpa 8 years later.

Haven't watched the crap in years, It will always be about ratings and dollars, not journalism. See it for what it is. this is like asking a skunk not to smell bad.

I have been saying this for a long time. Hillary Clinton was an end user and was responsible for the content of the emails and whether the addressees had clearance to exchange those emails. You can and should question her all day long on those issues and only those issues. (So far I have heard zero claims faulting her on either of these issues). The IT staff are responsible for the security on the transmission of the data. So why didn't the IT staff use fire-wall's and/or encryption to make the transmission secure. This technology has been around for at least 20 years. Even the private server issue would be moot had the IT staff simply done their job. So, like I say, the wrong people are being asked the wrong questions.

So far the only data that has come out on Hillary's email are what Republican House members have leaked to the press - that Hillary claimed that Colin Powell suggested she use a private email server. If WikiLeaks had this data they would have released it long ago. So it looks like the only security breach is coming from House Republicans - how ironic.

... interpreted as "equal time for blatant lies."

I'm so glad to see at least SOMETHING being pointed out about even one of the Hillary Persecution Squad:

http://www.salon.com/2016/08/22/judicial-watch-vs-hillary-the-conservative-group-has-a-long-history-of-spreading-clinton-lies/

from the thread by our own pnwmom...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512378996