How do these dunces, these serial liars, get away with it?

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Quote:

Tomgram: Jonathan Schwarz, Bill Kristol's Obscure Masterpiece

As Eric Alterman has written, [http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070212/alterman] he's the "journalist" of "perpetual wrongness" (as well as an "apparatchik" of the first order and a "right-wing holy warrior"). And for that, he's perpetually hired or published: Fox News, the Washington Post op-ed page, Time Magazine, and most recently, the New York Times where, in his very first column, he made a goof that had to be corrected at the bottom of column two (and where, with his usual perspicacity when it comes to the future, he predicted an Obama victory in the New Hampshire primary).

Liberal websites devote time to listing his many mistakes and mis-predictions. In a roiling mass of neocons, right-wingers, and liberal war hawks, he's certainly been in fierce competition for the title of "wrongest" of all when it came to the invasion and occupation of Iraq. ("Iraq's always been very secular") I hardly have to spell out the name of He Who Strides Amongst Us, the editor of Rupert Murdoch's Weekly Standard. But, okay, for the one person on the planet who doesn't know -- it's Bill Kristol. The notorious Mr. Kristol, the man whose crystal ball never works.

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174894

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 658 • Replies: 13

No top replies

I posted a link to this in the first posting, but the article is so important, so unbelievably right on in describing how the right wing works that another mention had to be made.

Quote:

Kristolizing the (Neoconservative) Moment

Eric Alterman

...

Make no mistake: Bill Kristol is an extremely smart fellow with good manners and a likable demeanor. Because he is so smart, it's all but impossible to believe that he believes many of the things he says and writes. But if one looks for a consistent pattern to Kristol's perpetual wrongness, it's not hard to discern. For Kristol is less interested in being correct than in advancing his side's interests. He's not a journalist; he's an apparatchik working undercover as a man of the press.

...

And while his Manichean machinations on behalf of the Republican Party may strike one as morally questionable, they cannot be held against his journalism. That may be true, but I would argue that Kristol has changed hats, not stripes. How else to explain that nearly every time a major issue confronts the nation, his analysis is not merely wrong but spectacularly so, and always in the same direction, regardless of evidence or expertise.

Observe:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070212/alterman

0 Replies

Has Bill Kristol ever claimed to be a journalist? ever claimed he was playing it straight? Doubtful. The rap on Kristol is that he slipped the line between "spin" and lying, which should be a problem for anyone.

0 Replies

hawkeye10 wrote:

Has Bill Kristol ever claimed to be a journalist?

And you call yourself "Hawkeye"? Smile

"Not only is he EiC of The Weekly Standard, a semi-regular columnist for the Washington Post, a Fox News analyst and a frequent face on Jon Stewart's The Daily Show; he is also a regular columnist for Time."

And now he's working at the New York Times. What is he, the janitor?

0 Replies

JTT wrote:

"Not only is he EiC of The Weekly Standard, a semi-regular columnist for the Washington Post, a Fox News analyst and a frequent face on Jon Stewart's The Daily Show; he is also a regular columnist for Time."

And now he's working at the New York Times. What is he, the janitor?

From what I have seen he calls himself a conservative commentator. Furthermore he is a pillar of the conservative establishment. I would never expect him to say anything that was not the "party line".

0 Replies

hawkeye10 wrote:

JTT wrote:

"Not only is he EiC of The Weekly Standard, a semi-regular columnist for the Washington Post, a Fox News analyst and a frequent face on Jon Stewart's The Daily Show; he is also a regular columnist for Time."

And now he's working at the New York Times. What is he, the janitor?

From what I have seen he calls himself a conservative commentator. Furthermore he is a pillar of the conservative establishment. I would never expect him to say anything that was not the "party line".

That's my point. If he's a "pillar of the conservative establishment", and I have no reason to doubt you, it's crystal clear just what the conservative establishment is; they are nothing more than a group of recidivist liars.

That makes it all the more puzzling as to why anyone would vote for them, let alone defend them.

What Eric Alterman wrote;

"How else to explain that nearly every time a major issue confronts the nation, his analysis is not merely wrong but spectacularly so, and always in the same direction, regardless of evidence or expertise"

holds so much import for the country as a whole. Nothing he says has any basis in fact. How can this be good for America? How can this be good for the citizenry of the USA?

Why is he, and he's hardly the only one, it's rampant among conservative commentators, allowed to go on so blatantly lying to all.

0 Replies

Bill carries on the legacy of his father Irving, who is widely considered the father of neoconservatism. Because of his genealogy Bill Kristol can do just about anything he wants to within the conservative movement.

The reason these boys and girls (in the case of Ann Coulter) are all over the airwaves is that they have spent two decades charging journalism with liberal bias, and the charge has stuck. Journalism is in a very sorry state what with the impending death of the newspapers and current media consolidation in the hands of right wing nuts (Murdock et al) and those beholden to them. That plus journalism's normal guilt complex has lead to a capitulation of the establishment to the right wing ideologs.

0 Replies

And George Stephanopoulos, former communications director for the Clinton White House, is a 'journalist' by what measure?

George has a poli sci degree and an honorary law degree, but not a journalism degree.

Hired by ABC News to be chief Washington correspondent, and also he is host of the ABC Sunday morning show 'This Week', George is a reliable liberal that has no qualifications in hard news journalism (unless you count his college days as a sportscaster. Laughing

)

You wanna compare apples with apples?

How 'bout Cokie Roberts, graduating with a poli sci degree?

What qualified her as a 'journalist' ?

Oh yeah, her dad was a Democratic congressman, and she a trustworthy liberal.

0 Replies

It is apples and oranges...Kristol is all over the place on high impact media, Stephanopoulos is at ABC with how many viewers? Not many. I think that Stephanopoulos would tell you if you asked him that he is trying to be a respectable journalist, Kristol clearly has no intention of being one....would consider the title an insult. Kristol is currently working for Mccain...which presidential candidate is Stephanopoulos working for???

0 Replies

So we should simply believe that Stephy is objective , because you wish it to be so............

................and not believe Kristol (ever) because you don't like him?

How about addressing the issues you raised , that of journalistic credentials and of partisanship.

What qualifies Stephanopoulos to be chief Washington correspondent for one of the major TV news organizations?

What claim can George make to 'objectivity' when he went from the Clinton White House to his job at ABC (All 'Bout Clinton) News?

0 Replies

I consider myself a socialist...just so you know, and I will tell you that Stephanopoulos should not be drawing a paycheck of any kind from ABC News, much less be sitting in the chair he currently has. ABC is just as wrong as the companies who pay Kristol are, however in my opinion Stephanopoulos is the better man because is has the desire to be a journalist. Kristol is a shill for a product, the conservative ideology.

0 Replies

Your outrage seems rather selective.

Speaking of Rather, did you call Dan Rather a shill after he spoke as a headliner for the Texas Democratic Party while he was still the news anchor at CBS News?

Quote:

Rather Spoke at Democratic Fundraiser

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 4, 2001; Page A01

Dan Rather, the longest-serving and most outspoken of the major network news anchors, recently served as the star attraction at a Democratic Party fundraiser.

Donors paid as much as $1,000 for a private evening in Austin with the CBS newsman, according to an invitation obtained by The Washington Post. Rather's appearance at the March 21 gathering generated about $20,000 for the Travis County Democratic Party -- and will undoubtedly provide ammunition to critics who have long accused Rather of leaning to the left.

Rather said yesterday that he hadn't realized beforehand that the event was a fundraiser. "I didn't ask the question, and I should have," he said in an interview. "I take full responsibility for it. I'm responsible and I'm accountable."

But the Texas native stopped short of calling his appearance a mistake or saying he would not have attended had he known in advance that he was being used to raise money.

Acknowledging that he didn't want to sound like Al Gore at a Buddhist temple, Rather said: "When I got there, I was very aware that it was a fundraising event. I'm not going to say I had no idea what was going on. . . . If someone wants to fault me for that, I wouldn't blame them."

Why was he allowed to occupy the news chair for another 4 years?

Did you call him a shill?

0 Replies

You are not making a lick of sense.....Rather had been a journalist since 1950, often times a damn good one. You quote a piece from 2001 where it says that people are still trying to figure out if he leans left or not, and you equate that with how Kristol behaves??? Rather made a lot of mistakes late in his career, but so far as journalism goes Kristol is not qualified to shine Dan's shoes.

0 Replies

hawkeye10 wrote:

... but so far as journalism goes Kristol is not qualified to shine Dan's shoes.

... so far as journalism goes Kristol is not qualified to lick Dan's shoes.

0 Replies

How do these dunces, these serial liars, get away with it?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know