Tuesday Links and Open Thread

55 thoughts on “Tuesday Links and Open Thread”

  1. CNN reports for the first time in two years more than 50% of Americans approve how Obama is handling the presidency. {Larry takes his bow} Don’t be pooh-poohing my prediction. That means you.

    • Not much. Nobody reads this site, as the people who check it a dozen times a day will tell you. Sort of like that restaurant down the street: “Nobody goes there…it’s too crowded.”

      • I look in on this site Johnnie, but I used to ENJOY it a lot more in the past.
        Some posters here are really interesting, and some posters here are really witty and fun to read,and some people are all of those things…..and that’s whether I agree with their views or not .
        But there is a small minority of terrier here that like to nip at the heels of who they don’t want here…kinda like a mosquito at a picnic.

        If you have a Troll ,and you keep feeding that Troll ,it will keep coming back. To me .. that makes the people feeding the Trolls , become Trolls themselves.

        Having said all that…I read your tweets..and enjoy them. So it’s nothing to do with you, personally, nothing at all.

  2. This CNN flag thing is embarrassing and perplexing. Yes, CNN should admit it made a mistake, but why all the derision at that in the first place? How familiar are we all supposed to be with the items represented on the flag?

    Lord knows, I’m out of it…but its not like it was depictions of can openers and toasters.

    • Your point is a good one. I didn’t even link this story when it first broke because, hey, how many people (even broadcasters) are supposed to recognize silhouettes of sex toys anyhow? I figured it wasn’t a big deal.

      However, it became a big deal when CNN clammed up, deleted the video off their site, and then the reporter improbably claimed that no I never said that! Then it became a total Zucker screw-up.

    • I agree , they should admit the mistake and go on , and at same time I can see how they would mistake that flag too

      • Yup. That’s what I was basically saying: Mistakes happen. It wasn’t a horrible one…but to scrub the segment while stating no such report was ever made (by Lucy Pawle) is what’s fueling this thing at this point.

        • Have you read the ICN piece linked above? Spud says that we don’t know for sure what statement Pawle responded to in her tweet since the person tweeting her has deleted their account (in your Mediaite piece you’ve linked to a bogus account).

          It certainly makes a difference in mind to learn that Pawle originally called the flag a mimicry of the ISIS one.

          • Lost in the analysis was Pawle’s insistence in going on the air. Remember- she’s an editor and was simply walking home before noticing the flag and pitching herself to be on-air without talking to the flag owner for more context.

            So while–as I wrote–the mistake was somewhat understandable–the decision to even rush this on the air and speculate about it is something the producers and Pawle should be held accountable for.

            Thanks- Joe

          • So Pawle saw the flag on Twitter, asked where it was (Sherlock Holmes’ old stomping ground Bakers Street) and then went over to investigate.

            I didn’t know that was the scenario.

          • what about Spud’s point that you don’t know what she was responding to in tweeting “I didn’t”?

          • That’s what a retraction and explanation would help provide. By not saying anything nor responding to about 1000 tweets directed at her asking what she meant, it only gives the story legs. But CNN and Pawle aren’t responding while the media reporter isn’t addressing it. So when somebody like Erik Wemple of the Washington Post throws down the hammer as he’s doing or John Oliver does a segment on it, that looks like the wrong strategy.

          • I don’t think anyone is contesting the argument that CNN has handled this badly. That doesn’t give media critics the leeway to make assumptions and run with them.

          • Ok- when Lucy responds to my direct inquiry on the Tweet (two days and counting) I’ll be sure to share her response. But to give her a free pass? Don’t think so.

          • Giving her a free pass is one thing. Nobody has. That’s not the same thing as attaching conclusions to vague tweets which aren’t indicative of anything.

          • Sure you have…unless there’s something about the headline that says: “Lay off Lucy Pawle” that needs some kind of further explanation.

          • The further explanation was in the story. I stated more than once that she isn’t innocent but the level of criticism being aimed at her was over the top.

          • We can talk about how CNN has bungled responding to this but let’s also stipulate that CNN has made a decision…a bad one but a decision nontheless. That decision is apparently a gag order on discussing this. That gag order extends to everyone at the network….Pawle…Stelter…everyone.

            It’s asinine to expect Pawle to comment. It totally ignores the reality of how news networks work. If she’s still employed, she’s under lockdown.

            It’s doubly asinine to expect Stelter to do anything. What’s he going to do? A blow by blow of what happened? Yeah, right. News Flash: Cable News media reporters rarely cover their own network…especially if it’s bad news. Kurtz was the same way when he had the CNN gig. He gave like five sentences to the firing of Octavia Nasr when it deserved a whole segment.

            I too don’t like Stelter’s current role at CNN but unlike Joe I approach it from the point of view that he should be completely recused from reporting on his own network. There is no way to do it without conflict of interest arguments being hurled about. So don’t try.

            What Concha wants is something that falls under the role of an Ombudsman…something I have long argued cable news networks sorely need. But they’ll never do it. There’s no upside and plenty of downside.

          • Asinine? Doubly asinine? Ah, the usual condescension and patronization. So professional of you, Spud…but that’s about what we should expect. If Brian can’t talk about his own network, he shouldn’t claim that he takes it to task (which he has on several occasions) and simply apply the Tucker Carlson/Daily Caller rule. Can’t wait to hear you spin how the Begala story shouldn’t be covered, either.
            We agree on Ombudsmans for all cable networks…I’ve written about creating such. It works on Red Eye quite well. And would actually make for good TV in the process. So yes, there is upside.

          • Let’s go fight him on his own turf. I’ll have your back. On second thought, you’re on your own.

          • Well let’s see…you want to call it condescension…fine. I’ll accept that. I’m known for my over the top attacks. It is what it is and it’s my bed so I’ll lie in it.

            I just don’t see how someone who should know better since they actually work in the industry (and should instinctively know from personal experience what they are allowed and not allowed to do as an employee of an organization) then wants to foist a different set of rules on someone else…well it just makes me think they’ve either switched their brain off (which falls under the definition of ‘asinine”) or they have an agenda. There. I’ve explained why I chose the term “asinine”.

            OTOH, your point of attack on Stelter positioning himself as a credible lens into CNN is fair…but only in as much as it’s an untenable position for him to hold. Eventually, the realities of being an employee in the very organization he seeks to illuminate are going to trump whatever he wants to accomplish. I’ll take it at face value that he really wants to do it but hasn’t become self-aware of the impossibility of the task. It’s something I’ve considered writing about many times but haven’t gotten around to for one reason or another.

            But if you’re going to hammer the guy you need to explain why it can’t work. What I’ve observed is you spend way too much time on the former and not nearly enough on the latter. Without that context, your attacks come off more as attacking the guy just to attack him…ala Betsy Rothstein…than as someone who has genuine issues with Stelter’s stated positions…especially when you factor in the relative pass you give and have given Howard Kurtz, who was similarly challenged when he was at CNN (and is now at Fox).

            This is a problem CNN itself created when it didn’t recuse Stelter from analyzing his own network. I don’t like the Daily Caller analogy because I’m not convinced that Tucker didn’t just make that up on the fly out of an irrational fear when he spiked Kaus.

            Begala? Oh, please. We’re on the same page there. But you did only touch upon what I consider the central issue…that Begala is just one example of a much bigger problem that infests all of cable news (though not so much on The Daily Wrap!). It’s an issue that doesn’t get as much attention as it should. I’d wager the majority of political operatives and strategists out there regularly seek out talking points and have a similar disdain for the farce they go through as Begala does. It’s even worse when it’s people like Mika or the talking points get into the newscast itself, as once happened on Fox.

            Red Eye’s Ombudsman is like the bizarro world version of the Ombudsman. It’s more a gimmick than anything else. It certainly doesn’t follow the pattern of the newspaper Ombudsman which is supposed to serve as conduit between the audience and the organisation or entity that employs him/her. So yeah, it’s an upside for Red Eye because it’s more of a gimmick…feigning the trappings of the Ombudsman without really going through the motions of the Ombudsman.

            But that model won’t work for cable news organizations (or TV News in general). They have grown accustomed to a lack of accountability to anything other than ratings. When you got O’Reilly pulling down 5m viewers after he launches one of his over the top broadsides or Don Lemon getting the most press CNN has gotten in years for a single talent, you don’t want some loose cannon going around questioning, and therefore undermining, all that.

          • Wow. Comparing me to Betsy Rothstein? My “attacks” on Brian have been singular…as in I’ve written about him once since he joined CNN until this week (once). And that analysis (not attack) was based on facts and research around the show’s weekly focus on Fox and overall reasons why RS hasn’t performed well against its timeslot-like competitor on Fox (losing over 90 percent of the time). Said analysis was done respectfully, professionally and without snark. In other words, the opposite of the way you conduct yourself with those you disagree with.
            The good news is I have a half-year resolution to declare: To never punch down again. That therefore puts any correspondence with you off the table.
            Good night and good luck.

          • I was in your corner, Spud, but I’m not crazy about your arguments here.

            I love your holding Joe Concha responsible for his professionalism, but he seems to be the only media member in the CNN brouhaha that you have shown much of an interest in.

  3. Re: Julie Banderas

    Julie Banderas isn’t shy about doing a Tamron Hall and injecting herself into an issue, and as the link shows, in a completely inane way.

    No, no one had to vote to allow you to marry, Julie. The fact that since the dawn of man there are several compelling reasons for why that is, ought to make you a little less arrogant in offering up such a superficial comment. It’s specious and doesn’t advance your POV..

    No, Julie, not supporting gay marriage is not the same as forbidding gay people from spending their life with whoever they wish. Being hyperbolic doesn’t help you either.

    It’s not enough that any media discussion of this issue has to turn into the denouement scene on Perry Mason, it has to be replete with the most infantile of arguments as well.

    • I cannot understand why these people on TeeWee think that they have to inject themselves into news stories. I like Julie, but she was way out of line on this. She should leave making a fool out of yourself to the professionals.

  4. Today’s most popular links:
    5 Geraldo Rivera
    4 marriage comments
    3 Tom Shillue
    2 correct
    And the most popular link in today’s links…
    1 Baldwin bump.

    • I wonder how many people clicked on the Baldwin link, thinking it was about Alec and his weird comments about Taylor Swift. I know that I did.

      • I was relieved that the Rivera link wasn’t announcement that he was going to be in Bob’s seat on the Five.

  5. So if gay pride means waving butt plugs and dildos, maybe the problem is CNN just isn’t proud enough. I’m envisioning a rainbow Wolf explaining sex-toy holograms..

  6. If you wanted a good analysis of Chris Christy on the day he announced for President, you didn’t find it on NBC nightly News, you didn’t find it on Special Report, and you didn’t find it on the PBS Newshour. You found it on The Daily Wrap. My favorite panel combination tonight. These people actually know something and don’t seem to have much more of an agenda than to tell you what they know.

    • not to take the edge off of your enthusiasm because you certainly should enjoy it. it seemed forced. about the 5th time unger said, worker, fair, used to be …. 6 mins. i clicked off. i just don’t get it.. did not like the dead either. oh well.

    • Thanks Larry. Half the time we’re doing the show we almost forget we’re on television. Phony is the one word we try to avoid.

Comments are closed.