PBS's Pretense of Objectivity

[musicman]

Screw PBS's pretense of objectivity. It's insulting to the intelligence of even an eight -year- old.

Tim Russert is supposed to be known for his "tough" questioning. However, "tough" questions only go so far when you allow the likes of Ted Kennedy- by way of reply- to offer whichever wetbrained socialist hallucination has managed to knock the pink elephants and polka-dot tarantulas off his reeking liberal ass for a few minutes- then, refuse to follow up, or even challenage his lunacy in any way. The meek acceptance of incoherent, unresponsive answers scarcely qualifies as "hard-nosed journalism".

What yesterday's "interview" amounted to was an opportunity for Kennedy to parrot- virtually uninterrupted- the moronic, repetitious Democrat party line. This was no freak occurrence. It's business as usual in artsy-fartsy land. That's the unrelenting arrogance of it.

Screw PBS. Screw taxpayer funding for PBS. Let them adopt the call letters, DNC, and go to work for a living the way honest whores do.

 

[LoneVoice]

Originally posted by musicman
Screw PBS's pretense of objectivity. It's insulting to the intelligence of even an eight -year- old.

Tim Russert is supposed to be known for his "tough" questioning. However, "tough" questions only go so far when you allow the likes of Ted Kennedy- by way of reply- to offer whichever wetbrained socialist hallucination has managed to knock the pink elephants and polka-dot tarantulas off his reeking liberal ass for a few minutes- then, refuse to follow up, or even challenage his lunacy in any way. The meek acceptance of incoherent, unresponsive answers scarcely qualifies as "hard-nosed journalism".

What yesterday's "interview" amounted to was an opportunity for Kennedy to parrot- virtually uninterrupted- the moronic, repetitious Democrat party line. This was no freak occurrence. It's business as usual in artsy-fartsy land. That's the unrelenting arrogance of it.

Screw PBS. Screw taxpayer funding for PBS. Let them adopt the call letters, DNC, and go to work for a living the way honest whores do.

Obviously, you don't know much about Tim Russert's style. He'll ask the prevailing questions, with little followup. But, he also allows them to answer in whatever manner of their choosing. No matter who he's interviewing, whether it be Ted Kennedy or George Bush. It's just his style. He virtually never interjects his own opinions. You'd be very hard pressed to understand his personal idealogy on anything from his interviews. It's his style.

Now, you may not like his style, but obviously many others do.

 

[DKSuddeth]

I noticed that about russert as well. he interviewed some expert on the middle east and terrorism, all answers in support of the iraq war and there wasn't a single challenge to any of them. I don't think he's got a biased bone in him other than to let people tell their side.

 

[eric]

Screw PBS. Screw taxpayer funding for PBS. Let them adopt the call letters, DNC, and go to work for a living the way honest whores do.

Russert I will say in all fairness is an exception, but as a rule PBS stands for Public Bull Shit.

 

[MtnBiker]

Call me crazy but isn't Meet the Press on NBC not PBS?

 

[Avatar4321]

I think there are some interesting points to that interview with Kennedy.

1)kennedy is quick to say that labels dont matter and then turn
around three minutes later and attack "Right wing Extremists"

2)Liberals are responsible for deficits.

Now neither of these is really news but i think its interesting Kennedy is admitting it.

 

[kcmcdonald]

it is on NBC!! mabey he is thinking about Charlie Rose?

 

[musicman]

Originally posted by kcmcdonald
it is on NBC!! mabey he is thinking about Charlie Rose?

Negative. Might be some quirk peculiar to my geographic area, but I saw this interview on PBS.

 

[musicman]

I wonder if someone could help me. Meet the Press is a roundtable discussion, is it not? The interview I'm referring to was a one on one, Russert and Kennedy. Possibly a different program?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
I noticed that about russert as well. he interviewed some expert on the middle east and terrorism, all answers in support of the iraq war and there wasn't a single challenge to any of them. I don't think he's got a biased bone in him other than to let people tell their side.

I guess the question then becomes, is the journalist supposed to get to the truth or is he just supposed allow people to espouse their propaganda without perhaps asking followups that a viewer examining it's validity might be interested in.

I think just being a fancy mouthpiece for any hack with an agenda is akin to being a two bit whore, but that's just my opinion!

 

[MtnBiker]

Originally posted by musicman
I wonder if someone could help me. Meet the Press is a roundtable discussion, is it not? The interview I'm referring to was a one on one, Russert and Kennedy. Possibly a different program?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/

 

[musicman]

Thanks, MtnBiker. That's the one I saw all right. How the hell did it wind up on PBS, I wonder?

Oh, well. Screw NBC, too.

 

[Palestinian Jew]

)kennedy is quick to say that labels dont matter and then turn

And did you see how he wouldn't say Kerry was a liberal?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Palestinian Jew
And did you see how he wouldn't say Kerry was a liberal?

Why would they run from that label? Can't it just mean "freedom loving"? Can't we just make up what we want it to mean so we mustn't acknowledge our very own beliefs.


"Pleaase let us live in the denial we've come to love. We're not socialists. We're just smarter than everyone else. "

 

[LoneVoice]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
I guess the question then becomes, is the journalist supposed to get to the truth or is he just supposed allow people to espouse their propaganda without perhaps asking followups that a viewer examining it's validity might be interested in.

I think just being a fancy mouthpiece for any hack with an agenda is akin to being a two bit whore, but that's just my opinion!

Actually Tim Russert is a refreshing change from the partisan (both Democrat and Republican) attack dog style of interviews or commentary from many in the media. After an interview with Russert, the public gets to know exactly what the interviewee's position is on many matters. This is uncorrupted, untainted, and non-agenda oriented, since the interviewer isn't interjecting. The other thing refreshing about Russert's style is that he makes an extra effort to avoid interrupting (interrupting: classic style of the partisan attack dogs). There's value to all of those styles of interviews (Republican partisan, Democrat partisan, and neutral). It just helps to understand the style and intent/agenda of the interviewer, when assessing the interview.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by LoneVoice
Actually Tim Russert is a refreshing change from the partisan (both Democrat and Republican) attack dog style of interviews or commentary from many in the media. After an interview with Russert, the public gets to know exactly what the interviewee's position is on many matters. This is uncorrupted, untainted, and non-agenda oriented, since the interviewer isn't interjecting. The other thing refreshing about Russert's style is that he makes an extra effort to avoid interrupting (interrupting: classic style of the partisan attack dogs). There's value to all of those styles of interviews (Republican partisan, Democrat partisan, and neutral). It just helps to understand the style and intent/agenda of the interviewer, when assessing the interview.

Yeah. SOme people like two bit whores. Have fun.

 

[LoneVoice]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Yeah. SOme people like two bit whores. Have fun.

Yeah, I like your mom..
So, what's the point?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by LoneVoice
Yeah, I like your mom..
So, what's the point?

Lonevoice, you're my kind of scum!