Hey Liberals, Intellectual Honesty Cuts Both Ways
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Democrats, Media, Partisan Hacks, VideoNote to the left…it’s not enough to simply call out the right on their hypocrisy.
Janeane Garofalo…
(UPDATE: Apparently the first video was taken down. In it Garofalo argued that the tea partiers were racist, and it was mixed with a clip from 2003 where she said that ALL dissent was patriotic. So that was obviously a case of intellectual dishonesty. However, now I’m simply going to embed the clip from last week where she talked about the protestors being racist. That’s damning enough.)
This morning, I listened to about 10 minutes of the Stephanie Miller Show on Air America as I ran out to get a coffee.During the mind-numbingly inane banter (Miller’s show makes Fox & Friends sound like the Oxford Union Debating Society), Miller and her sidekicks started talking about a sign at one of the tea party protests that apparently said, “Don’t Tax Me, Bro.â€
Okay. Not very funny. But Miller’s take?
“Isn’t ‘Bro’ pretty clearly a slang reference to African-Americans?â€
Miller’s sidekick: “Yeah, it’s pretty thinly-veiled racism.â€
Schultz actually said that Fox News anchors were secretly hoping for shots to be fired, for government officials to be killed, and for an ensuing violent overthrow of the government. He strongly implied that tea party organizers want Obama to be assassinated. He equated Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s statement in support of the 10th Amendment this week as akin to support for a bloody revolution.This guy isn’t fringe, either. DCCC chairman and Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen was one of Schultz’s guests today. Schultz also has an evening show on MSNBC, where Obama press secretary Robert Gibbs will be his guest tonight.
There’s no doubt that there was a fair amount of unreasonable anti-Obama sentiment on display last week, but to see folks like Garofalo, Miller and Schultz paint tea party participants with such a broad brush is simply indefensible.
And shame on those in the left wing media who don’t call out their counterparts when they spread nonsense like this.
UPDATE:
The video from above is back up…
I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning…
This entry was posted on Sunday, April 19th, 2009 and is filed under Democrats, Media, Partisan Hacks, Video. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
April 19th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
I cannot speak for Garofalo or Miller–Garofalo is pretty hard to take seriously, and while I like to listen/watch Miller when she goes head to head with some right wing pundits her show is akin to sitting next to the “popular kids” lunchroom table in junior high while they make fun of everyone and then pat themselves on the back for being so much cooler.
Schultz is a lightly different story–I am suprised, and a little skeptical of “the agitators” summation.
I occassionally listen to Schultz and last week I spent a lot of time driving and didn’t catch anything like that. Of course, I didn’t catch or don’t recall the first two statements cited by the agitator, but I heard at least one of his takes (maybe there were more?) on Gov Rick Perry’s speech (which is kindly and inaccurately called here as “support of the 10th Amendment”); Schultz never said Perry was calling for a bloody revolution–at least not while I was listening.
And why is having Rep. Chris Van Hollen or Robert Gibbs some kind of condemnation of liberal wackiness?
It’s fine to call out the left when they go too far–spend 10 minutes on the daily kos comment section and you’ve got a month of material–but let’s make sure someone goes too far before condemning them–just because some right wing blogger doesn’t like what he hears doesn’t put it in the same category as Glenn Beck’s semi-nightly mental breakdowns.
April 19th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
I thought Schultz was different too, but after seeing his new MSNBC show, I’m done. The guy makes Olbermann look reasonable. It is an embarrassment.
Also, having those folks on the show isn’t a condemnation. It means that Schultz is saying these types of things and still gets mainstream politicos as guests. Basically, by coming on they’re essentially giving his brand of liberal talk a thumbs up.
One last note…this post isn’t about whether or not Glenn Beck is worse. It’s about making sure your own side stays honest, and these folks clearly aren’t doing that. In my mind, a hack is a hack is a hack, but I understand if you disagree.
April 19th, 2009 at 10:09 pm
Olbermann should apologize for the Garofolo segment.
And he has only himself to blame. He has set up this “call and response” style of interview in which he asks “questions” that contain the answers, then gets an echo from his compliant guests.
Unfortunately for him, Garofolo played the game on him. A show where genuine disagreement is never allowed is not equipped to cut off a meandering dumbass like Garofolo.
There were some racist signs and no doubt attitudes at the tea parties. But there were far more regular old anti-tax folks and Libertarians. Libertarians have been friends to liberals on most social issues and don’t deserve to be denigrated this way.
April 19th, 2009 at 10:58 pm
I agree. The only difference between Schultz, Miller or Garofalo and Limbaugh, Hannity or Beck is their position on the political spectrum (liberal or conservative). The content or tone of the rhetoric (hyperbolic and polarizing) is the same. Liberals lose credibility when criticizing the right’s blowhards if they can’t call these folks out on their BS.
Moderates/independents hear things like this, coming on the heels of the drumbeat from the aforementioned right-wing loudmouths, and say “A pox on both your houses!”
April 20th, 2009 at 8:19 am
I find Garofalo annoying and irrelevant. I cannot watch Olberman because he is far too strident. But I just don’t see how anyone can get worked up over what Garofolo said. So she called the tea party participants racists. I’ve heard far worse on Limbaugh and Hannity when they refer to anti-war protesters or Earth Day rally participants. She’s a not-very-funny comedian and a so-so actress. Who cares what she says, really?
April 20th, 2009 at 8:39 am
Well, I haven’t seen Schult’s MSNBC show….I do think he’s become more strident in recent months, but not to the level as reported by agitator.
If has gone down that same road as the others, it will be a shame because there are just as few rational progressives out there as there are rational conservatives, it seems.
April 20th, 2009 at 10:40 am
Justin wrote
However, now I’m simply going to embed the clip from last week where she talked about the protestors being racist. That’s damning enough.)
I’m not sure that is where your concern was. I thought it was that she implied that all of the protesters were racists. Talking about some of the protesters being racist was beyond question and something that was pretty obvious from some of the signs I saw.
Patrikios wrote
I agree. The only difference between Schultz, Miller or Garofalo and Limbaugh, Hannity or Beck is their position on the political spectrum (liberal or conservative). The content or tone of the rhetoric (hyperbolic and polarizing) is the same.
I could not disagree with you more. Garofalo was over the top. Miller tries to play a clown but from what I have heard mostly silly not mean spirited (I’ve heard Limbaugh go after Chelsea Clinton’s looks when she was in high school and also Whoopi Goldbergs’.) Hannity and Beck are horrible shills with no shred of balance (Simon would rip their arguments to shreds) Hannity is almost as disrespectful as O’Reilly of his guests and Beck is as scary as they get. Giving him a platform fr his delusioned rants is irresponsible. Schulz seems mostly middle of the road from what I have heard. The transcript I read was a lot more nuanced than what was here.
Here’s the difference.
Fox calling itself Fair and Balanced is just outrageous and anyone believing that they are is fractally confused. I think their pushing the Tea Parties is way over the line for a “news” network. You have a network run by one of the more partisan people from the GOP and people honestly think they are fair and balanced? Please. If people want to go there for opinion that is one thing but to go their for news is ripping the country apart, because people actually believe they are getting facts when they are actually getting opinion.
The Daily Show does a better job at news than most news sources. When Cheney lied repeatedly all the networks just gave him the ability to state his lie and on Fox I’m sure it was completely believed. On the Daily Show, they showed him saying repeatedly what he said he had never said. I think every news organization should call everyone left right and middle on their deliberate misleading.
April 20th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Garofalo is just another Hollywood hanger-on. But Ed Schultz on MSNBC, in my view, reflects a quantum leap by that network into the business of nasty, hyper-partisan programming — as a sort of bookend to Fox News.
Sure, Rachel Maddow is a lefty and Keith is really creepy but Schultz is something more — a left-wing Rush Limbaugh. What’s more, Schultz has been given the hour occupied over the past year or so by “The race for the White House” hosted by David Gregory and later, “1600 Pennsylvania Avenue” hosted by the annoying but harmless David Schuster.
This leaves Chris Matthews anchoring the right wing of MSNBC’s evening programming!
This is not a positive development. With MSNBC and Fox constantly revving up polarizing politics, it’s hard to see how good sense can overcome loopy left- and right-wing blather on the air.
April 20th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Garofolo reminds me of every lefty brainy kid I went to artschool with -damn sure of everything and off base about most. For this reason: she cherry picks facts and makes sweeping generalizations, just like, guess who – everyone on Fox. Garafalo, Olberman, et al, do more harm to the left’s moral authority than any right winger could ever do, becuase they are become what they claim to hate. Great job, brainiacs. You guys are way better off as the underdogs, cuz then we can dismiss your hyperboly as the rants of a poor victim. Once progressive lay claim to the cultural high ground, they should shut these people up before they ruin it for the rest of us. Jeneane, Olberman, shut up, please.
PS – I think it’s important for a party to the keep the wackjobs in check. Advice to the right: try it sometime.
April 21st, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Agreed. This is an extremely annoying thing, especially when so very, very little in the way of genuine insight is ever offered. They’re the good guys who are right, they are the bad guys who are wrong. Lather, rinse, pat on back, repeat.
Garafalo IMO is a total lightweight. She’s never progressed past the college liberal with a bad attitude level of politics. She and Glenn Beck clearly need a more effective medication, or a heavier dose, or both.
On my bad days, I struggle to figure out what grand purpose, which I cannot see, is being served by granting soapboxes to such angry bigmouths who are eager to tell half or less of the story.
I really watch very little of any of these folks. The only person I can recall watching who i felt was trying to do an intellectually honest, fair, and useful job was a woman whose name I think was Campbell Brown or something like that. But I have no sense if she’s always like that. She just seemed to have a little bit of humbleness and decency which I find SO appealing in comparison to Dobbs or Coulter or Moore or Hannity or Olberman or O’Reilly.