September 28, 2008

Tom Brokaw's bizarre idea of what fairness required.

Steve Schmidt and David Axelrod were on "Meet the Press" this morning, and they spewed talking points and evaded the questions asked by Tom Brokaw. Here's the best example of that:
MR. BROKAW: Let me just share with you what The Wall Street Journal had to say about the opening statements of your two candidates at the debate the other night.

"The debate took place amid the backdrop of the financial crisis, and perhaps most disappointing was how neither man seemed to have anything useful to say about it. ... What neither man showed was any real insight about our financial market issues, or any political courage in offering a solution."

Are you going to have to go back and replate [sic] your economic program, Mr. Axelrod, going forward, because of the changed conditions that result--as a result of this bailout program?

MR. AXELROD: Well, first of all, I don't accept the premise of the Journal piece. The fact is that Senator Obama's been warning for a year and a half about this crisis--about the possibility of such a crisis because of the lack of oversight and greed on Wall Street... But the decisions we make are to prioritize, and this is what Senator Obama said that night, are to prioritize the middle class. What was phenomenal about that debate was that in 40 minutes on the economy, Senator McCain never once mentioned the middle class, never talked about the struggles people are going through. We need to create an economic recovery plan that puts at its core the middle class in this country.

MR. SCHMIDT: Well, Tom, you know, this was a debate about national security, about foreign policy. You never heard the word victory from Senator Obama when it came to wars this country's fighting. But we did talk about the middle class.....
Translation: The Wall Street Journal is absolutely right! The candidates have no real insight about our financial market issues and no political courage in offering a solution.

I'm skipping all the other blah blah blah, which you can read at the link. It's about Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, al Qaeda, etc. Then Brokaw ends the interview like this:
MR. BROKAW: In fairness to everybody here, I'm just going to end on one note, and that is that we continue to poll on who's best equipped to be commander in chief, and John McCain continues to lead in that category despite the criticism from Barack Obama by a factor of 53 to 42 percent in our latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

Gentlemen, thank you very much. I wish we could spend the rest of the day talking about these issues. But you're invited back, and I hope you'll make your second appearance right here on MEET THE PRESS.
What? Why was it a matter of "fairness to everybody here" to end the debate with a thudding, unanswered poll result? At the end of a discussion in which both candidates were perfectly well represented by their mouthpieces, Brokaw thought fairness required him to say, essentially, "Well, the American people still think McCain is much better on these questions."

Brokaw began the discussion by saying "We're not going to get into this business about who won and lost the debate." He made a point of not presenting Schmidt and Axelrod with poll numbers on that subject. And none of his other questions were based on polls, nor did Schmidt and Axelrod bring up any polls. So why did Brokaw end like that?

My guess? Inside NBC, they are fretting about criticism that they show favoritism toward Obama, so Brokaw thought it might help to lob out a glaring hunk of McCain favoritism. Sorry! That just looked really weird. Consequently, it reinforced the perception that NBC favors Obama.

UPDATE: I was right!

97 comments:

Doyle said...

I think Brokaw is a lousy MTP moderator, but I don't think everything he says is part of some grand strategy by NBC.

And few people are so addled that they would bother presenting pro-McCain tidbits as evidence of underlying pro-Obama bias.

Ann Althouse said...

Answer my question: Why did he say it?

Don't just say you disagree with my interpretation. It happened. Do you have an alternative explanation?

Beldar said...

Oh my. At NBC News right now, they must be saying, "Nailed! Professor Althouse's neutrality is indeed cruel!"

Doyle said...

Answer my question: Why did he say it?

Pity?

Ann Althouse said...

Doyle, that agrees with my interpretation, you should acknowledge.

Syl said...

I've heard many say that neither candidate addressed the credit markets crisis. So that's a zero for both.

Most that I've heard who were Obama supporters said Obama did fine and held is own on national security then say he knocked it out of the park on the economic stuff.

Most mccain supporters say tie or slight loss for mccain on the first part but mccain wiped obama's clock on national security.

So put it all together, remove the bias, and you have basically what Brokaw presented.

And most, if not all, polls give mccain an edge on national security anyway and have all along, so what's the beef?

The Drill SGT said...

simple answer, enlightened self interest.

1. personally they wanted Obama to win and it shows through too much. This was a bit of balance to take the edge off that viewpoint.

2. professionally, they don't want Obama to run the table here. They have a self interest in keeping McCain in the game.

Michael_H said...

Brokaw said it, I believe, because Brokaw is embarrassed by the blatant pro-Obama stance taken by the clowns at MSNBC, and wanted to move the 'reporting' back to the center a bit by tossing out one, brief, pro-McCain factoid.

In his time Brokaw was a fairly decent guy.

Michael_H said...

Additionally, I think Brokaw want to return to his interrupted retirement with his reputation intact. It was about Tom as much as it was about John.

Michael_H said...

/wants not want

InterestedObserver said...

You have to be kidding! Ms. Althouse, I'm sure you've heard of Occam's Razor, generally meaning that "all other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." There's no need to resort to conspiracy theorizing. Maybe, just maybe, Brokaw's ideological underwear is showing, and he has a pro-McCain/anti-Obama bias of which he may or may not be aware. In fact, Brokaw is notorious for his anti-Obama spin compared to some other NBC commentators.

Just because some of NBCs journalists have a "pro-Obama" bias, doesn't mean that they all do. Maybe Brokaw is over-compensating for a perceived pro-Obama bias for NBC, but that certainly shouldn't lead normal people to the conclusion that such over-compensation is further proof a pro-Obama bias. In that bizarro world, the more pro-McCain bias shown on NBC/MSNBC, the more the station must have a pro-Obama bias!

No offense, but your "cruel neutrality" is a pathetic joke and you're becoming increasingly irritating.

Doyle said...

Doyle, that agrees with my interpretation, you should acknowledge

No it doesn't. My interpretation doesn't involve NBC execs fretting about anything. Just Tom Brokaw trying to throw a bone to a doomed campaign.

Brent said...

Ann, you are right on this one.

I know people inside the news division at NBC (high school/college buddies) who have been telling me even before Russert died that Brokaw was getting hotter all the time about Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann becoming the NBC News "brand", mainly because they courted constant media and controversy outside NBC. As I mentioned in your September 8 Post, Ann (10:13 am), it is an open "secret" in NBC News that Tom Brokaw was the one behind the demotion of Matthews and Olbermann from Lead Election Anchors Coverage. Brokaw would fire Olbermann today if could, and possibly Matthews.

Brokaw is sensitive to his legacy, which he truly believes is one of leading NBC News as close to impartial as could be, and he firmly believes that he AND NBC showed far less bias in his years as Managing Editor and Head Anchor than either Peter Jennings at ABC and certainly Dan Rather at CBS.

Brokaw's relationship with Andrea Mitchell has also become somewhat strained, as he believes that she is clearly showing favor on the air towards Obama, and - even worse in Brokaw's estimation - taking opportunities to "diss" McCain/Palin.

Good for Tom Brokaw!

ag said...

"Replating"

Surely the sense is that of "replating" silver.

American Liberal Elite said...

My guess? Althouse is fretting about criticism that she shows favoritism toward Obama, so she thought it might help to lob out a glaring hunk of criticism of the supposedly liberal media. Sorry! That just looked really weird. Consequently, it reinforced the perception that Althouse favors Obama.

AJ Lynch said...

I suspect Brokaw had a list of topics to cover. This "gravitas" poll was one of them and his closing comment was his way of checking off this topic from his list.

Btw Brokaw is a pretty old fossil. Hell he is old enough to be a regular on 60 Mimutes. Time goes faster for old people and 30 minutes ain't what it used to be. Heh.

PatCA said...

I think he said it as an addendum to show his "cruel neutrality," although everyone knows he is a total liberal. This way, he can snooze during the program, which he has done since he took over, and then pop in the button as a CYA action.

JackOfVA said...

Tom Brokaw got his start, I believe, in the newspaper business, so using the term "replate" is a natural for him.

From http://www.ifabc.org/glossary.asp

"replate. A change of one or more pages during the printing of an edition or issue of a publication. This procedure generally serves the purpose of adding late news items or of correcting an error in the original copy."

Daniel said...

Fox News is therefore the most liberally biased media platform, given their constant need to bash Democrats to overcompensate for their biases.

Do I have your logic right?

Harwood said...

Ann: Answer my question: Why did he say it? Don't just say you disagree with my interpretation. It happened. Do you have an alternative explanation?
---
How about this: Each guest spent the hour disputing, "My guy is better!" -- "No, my guy is better."

After all that partisan gas, perhaps it is fair to state the fact -- and it is a fact -- that according to polls, most voters think McCain is better.

Susan said...

I lost all the respect I had for Brokow after seeing him on a panel saying how the networks had hit a milestone of excellence in their reporting of Hurricane Katrina.

madawaskan said...

Damn I 'll say this for Brokaw-maybe he reached some turning point.

During the eulogy for Tim Russert he made a nasty remark about half of the audience only being there because they were lobbying for his empty chair on Meet the Press -words to that effect.

I knew right then and there that-if he could- he was going to take the position just to torture them all.

Justice.

Peter Blogdanovich said...

, the Obama campaign has prosecuted a "get ahead, stay ahead", momentum campaign. For example, they are spending on media buys in states that don't matter in order to game the poll results to make Obama look stronger than he is. Critical to the Obama strategy is to intimidate opposition with a "don't mess with me cause I might win and you know what that means", threat. Brokaw gets this, he doesn't like it, and he's pushing back a little in his own way. He's saying,"Yea, you might win, but I'm Tom Brokaw, and you don't scare me.".

daredevil-66 said...

I think NBC is worried that the MSNBC hyper liberal branding is hurting their bottom line. Hence the demotion of Oberman and Matthews. The big 3 networks are transparetly always in the tank for the dems so every once in awhile they'll toss a bone to the republicans. God help them if they usher in another liberal democrat with skeletons cascading out of the closet.

etabby said...

One possible explanation is that the question at the end about Iraq got fairly contentious, with Schmidt saying "not true, not true" as Axelrod gave his spin. Perhaps Brokaw thought Schmidt was right and that Axelrod had been unfair in the way he had characterized McCain's position. So rather than let Axelrod get the last word, and have that last word be unfair and wrong, he decided to punish Axelrod by citing the poll result.

It was a strange way to end things, but I can't believe Brokaw would participate in the conspiracy the Prof. Althouse suggested.

Dody Jane said...

I wonder if Tom Brokaw might not secretly be for McCain. I read he was dismayed by the Olberman slaver- maybe this is Tom trying to be fair and balanced. Remember, Tom is the one who wrote "The Greatest Generation" - he admires war heros...Unfortunately, he is a dreadful moderator. The show is slow and there is too much filibustering!

cubanbob said...

" No offense, but your "cruel neutrality" is a pathetic joke and you're becoming increasingly irritating."

observer; please don't do us any favors and don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

Browkaw is smart enough to know the blatant partisanship is discrediting the network. And that is bad for business.
Considering that NBC is sandwiched between medical imaging and nuclear power in the annual report. I suspect the powers that be at GE are starting to get a bit worried that a McCain administration may not be so favorably disposed to GE getting government contracts and may well be starting damage control.

smitty1e said...

So if you have an audience-controlled "nonsense" meter, and whoever is speaking can see just how much fidelity they have with TFQ* maybe they would be less inclined to wander off into the elysian fields of their talking points.
A show could score some really raging ratings through this means.
I'm going to send this idea over to PJTV.

*The Fine Question

Michael said...

You read the insanity here, the never ending sucking up to all that is conservative...and you wonder why Obama is leading in the polls, why the Democrats are leading in damn ear ever congressional poll...and why the Republicans are in deep shit??

Look up the word; "denial."

Michael said...

Talk about a fine whine...

Ignatz said...

He said it as part of NBC's attempt at re-accredidation. Now that Obama has pulled ahead in the polls, NBC feels it can move to the Center. If the race were tight, he would not have said what he did.

Mister Snitch! said...

"Doyle, that agrees with my interpretation, you should acknowledge

No it doesn't. My interpretation doesn't involve NBC execs fretting about anything. Just Tom Brokaw trying to throw a bone to a doomed campaign."


Doyle's logic is impeccable. Althouse "should acknowledge"...

Kevin said...

Obviously Brokaw's just part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. Damn Mainstream Media Repuglicans.

Peter V. Bella said...

Hey Mikey,
Another Axelrod pay day.

Seven Machos said...

I wish for the power to drive random people crazy the way Althouse does.

Palladian said...

"I wish for the power to drive random people crazy the way Althouse does."

Sarah Palin seems to have the same powers. Maybe the powers are only granted to women.

Ann Althouse said...

Ah, so you mean that I should feel a special bond to Sarah?

I'm feeling sentimental right now... maybe I will flow into that place...

Moneyrunner said...

Ann's Post is a testament on the ideological uniformity of the MSM. If there is anything there that seems to favor McCain it's a unusual as a unicorn.

Hence Anne's tinfoil hat question.

Seven Machos said...

This is no time for sentimentality. Times like these demand cruel neutrality.

Michael said...

Ann can do whatever she wants to present herself as an Independent, but anybody who visits this site on a regular basis knows she's a Republican.

How else would anyone explain 95% of the contributors being conservative Republicans?

Conservatives don't spend their days sucking on each other at Democratic, Independent or liberal sites.

They look for agreement and companionship...and Ann provides just that.

Kirk Parker said...

"showed far less bias ... than either Peter Jennings at ABC and certainly Dan Rather at CBS."

You say that like it's a hard thing to accomplish.

Peter V. Bella said...

Conservatives don't spend their days sucking on each other at Democratic, Independent or liberal sites.

Ya see, Mikey, unlike you so called hypocritical progressives, we do not hate. So, why would we spend our time on sites that promote hate as a family value.

BTW, come on, now, be honest, how much does Axelrod pay you to infiltrate sites and spout his inanities?

Michael said...

Find an Independent, a Democrat or a Liberal among these regulars:

Beldar
The Drill SGT
Michael_H
Brent
AJ Lynch
Susan
OpenID cubanbob
smitty1e
Ignatz
Peter V. Bella
Palladian Bissage
Bunny
Trooper
Sloan
Vbspurs
Dr Dre
Blake
Synova
Donn
Peter V. Bella
Dogwood
Chip
Shanna
Paddy
EnigmatiCore
Steven
Ricpic
Mark
Jim Gust
Revenant
Jim
etc., etc., etc.

Now run off a list of the Independent, Democrats or Liberals...

Brent said...

Conservatives don't spend their days sucking on each other at Democratic, Independent or liberal sites.

Not me any more anyway.

Did the Kos, Huffington Post and lesser left-leaning sites for 2 1/2 years.

Had some fun teasing. Lost count of the times someone commented aqnd wished me and my family members dead (Never happens on this blog).


Very - VERY - little toleration for and discussion of opposing views on any left-wing site. It's just not possible for those who frequent them to think beyond their themselves. That's not a slam - it's a psychological fact, and it has been proven over and over again that empathy for another point of view is for the most part only available to the conservative mind. Liberals truly lack the ability to understand opposing viewpoints. Ann Althouse - and this is what truly sets her blog apart -
actually welcomes differing points of view and discussion.


Here's a bet for you, Michael.

While I would be happy to be wrong, my money's on Ann coming out for Obama, with reservations.

Michael said...

peter, based on your view of "progressives" (independents and liberals and Democrats) as being people who visit sites that "promote hate as a family value"...

...I can't even imagine what you must have been like to deal with in your capacity as one who was supposed to be supportive and protective of the community.

I know many police officers and I've never met a single one as vile and downright mean spirited as you.

Michael said...

Brent, I've never visited s site that anyone wished me or anyone else "dead."

Then again, I have no idea what the hell you wrote to elicit such a response.

As for Ann...like I said, why so many right wing suckasses visiting an site run by a Democrat or Independent?

There are plenty of conservative sites out there...why are they here every day?

Michael said...

Brent says that there is: "Very - VERY - little toleration for and discussion of opposing views on any left-wing site."

Unlike here, where contrry views are more than welcome.

And nobody would even consider calling you unpatriotic or un-American or a traitor...

...or like this from Dr Dre's Underpants:

"It just takes one big fuck up to destroy everything. Sort of like the one your mamma made when she didn't use the coat hanger like your daddy begged her to do."

Is that what YOU call..."toleration for and discussion of opposing views"???

Peter V. Bella said...

Ann can do whatever she wants to present herself as an Independent, but anybody who visits this site on a regular basis knows she's a Republican.

It is her blog, of course she can do whatever she wants. Now, if you had any balls, you would get your own hate filled blog and out your real name on it. I'll bet Axelrod could pay you a lot of money to do that.

Peter V. Bella said...

I know many police officers and I've never met a single one as vile and downright mean spirited as you.

You are as full of avian excrement as a Christmas goose. You do not know any cops. And who the fuck are you to demean my sevice, when you have done nothing usefull in your whole life except to get a pay check from Axelrod.

Seven Machos said...

It's incredibly humorous that leftist loons find their way here and feel compelled to furiously point out again and again and again that Althouse draws a number of conservative and libertarian commenters, as if it's some kind of crime.

What sad and lonely lives you must lead in order to make your life's mission the leftist thought police of Althouse's website.

Peter V. Bella said...

Unlike here, where contrry views are more than welcome.

Hey, this isn't the Grand Old Opry blog.

Peter V. Bella said...

...Althouse draws a number of conservative and libertarian commenters, as if it's some kind of crime.

To them, anyone who does not agree with their message of hate is a criminal. If they get the Presidency and more seats in the legislature, it will be a crime to go against the party of hate.

Michael said...

Seven says...with a straight face?

"Althouse draws a number of conservative and libertarian commenters..."

Which one?

Beldar
The Drill SGT
Michael_H
Brent
AJ Lynch
Susan
OpenID cubanbob
smitty1e
Ignatz
Peter V. Bella
Palladian Bissage
Bunny
Trooper
Sloan
Vbspurs
Dr Dre
Blake
Synova
Donn
Peter V. Bella
Dogwood
Chip
Shanna
Paddy
EnigmatiCore
Steven
Ricpic
Mark
Jim Gust
Revenant
Jim

AJ Lynch said...

Michael the German Valise:

This is a free country you know.

Michael said...

Petey, you're a very sad man.

You know absolutely nothing about me.

I feel sorry for you...you sound very lonely.

And, based on your vile nature, it's understandable.

Seven Machos said...

It's sad yet hilarious to think that someone took the time to put together a list like that.

Michael said...

aj, you don't know what a valise is, do you?

You're funny.

Michael said...

Seven, can you name the independents or Democrats or liberals on the list?

Seven Machos said...

More funny than sad. What does this troll hope to gain? What is the value of this absurd mission?

Michael said...

Petey: The "party of hate?"

Put the booze away old man.

You're drifting...

Michael said...

Seven, No names, huh?

Talk is cheap.

Put up or shut up little man.

Seven Machos said...

Assumed in this quixotic gotcha is the hilarious idea that conservative and libertarian people do not wish to self-identify as conservative and libertarian.

Wonderful research, though. I suppose that at least it keeps silly people out of trouble when they take the time to do this stuff.

Seven Machos said...

I have named a bunch of conservatives and libertarians. Ha! Gotcha!!!

Peter V. Bella said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Peter V. Bella said...

Mikey,
You are a hater. You are also a paid astrotroller. You never provide proof or links to your wild accusations. You demean people and look down on real public service. I would bet you supported that great humanitarian and author Tookie Williams. I bet you support Wesley Cook, another great author, humanitarian, and community organizer. You seem the type of hater to support heinous criminals. It is the progressive way.


BTW, the Democrat Party is the party of hate.

Michael said...

Petey: "BTW, the Democrat Party is the party of hate."

Uh, you mentioned that before.

Are you drunk?

You keep repeating yourself.

Seven Machos said...

Astrtroller -- I am perplexed. Please explain to us what you are trying to gain with this lark. Use little words because, as conservatives, we ar not match against your sooper jeanyus.

Michael said...

Seven, you apparently don't understnd.

There are no libertarians on the list.

They're ALL wingnuts.

Are you daft?

Michael said...

Why are you fools dicking around here when the Bears are in the last 2 minutes of their game?

Seven Machos said...

So libertarians are okay in your troll book but conservatives are not?

Big deal.

Even if you are right (and you aren't -- Rev, for example, is highly libertarian), big deal. What have you accomplished? You have named conservatives who identify as conservatives who post at Althouse.

What is your point?

Peter V. Bella said...

Nope, they are the party of hate. "Hate is not a family value" Ha ha ha ha ha!

Now be a good little progressive and take another hit off your bong. I would bet Axelrod's money will keep you in dope for a long time.

Michael said...

Seven, maybe if you actually read the comments.

You know, the "previous" comments?

I swear, you as dumb as a post.

Seven Machos said...

Oh, and Astrotroller, I'm still waiting for an explanation of how the railroad retirement board is a means of production.

I guess you'll move along to your next "point," having utterly failed yet again to make one here.

Michael said...

Petey, Anybody who uses the word "hate" as much as you do has some severe problems.

I don't know if it's because you were a cop (at least you say you were), but it's indicative of one who has security issues and lashes out at those who threaten them.

I suggest you either find a shrink or find a new shrink or ask your current shrink for more meds.

I sound very sad.

Michael said...

Seven: "the railroad retirement board"

What in the fuck are you blathering about?

I've never mentioned the railroad retirement board in my life...and what does it have to do with any of this?????

You're a fucking simpleton.

Palladian said...

Who the fuck is this "Palladian Bissage" asshole? Some nerve stealing both my and Bissage's name!

Peter V. Bella said...

Hey Mikey,
Prove me wrong. You can't, so you resort to the insult and debasement. That is the progressive way. When you cannot win an argument, you resort to the insult. That is the progressive tactic.

I do not have to prove anything to the likes of a sub human like you. I proved it everyday for almost thirty years. You have done nothing worthwhile.

Now go write a check for Wesley Cook and make yourself feel good.

Peter V. Bella said...

Oh, by the way Mikey, Obama, the Messiah, has admitted to using cocaine. The posession of cocaine was back then, and is today a felony. You and your party are supporting a man who admits to committing felonies.

Michael said...

Palladian: Fen said you and Bissage were dating.

Maybe he just meant mating.

P.S. Petey: Bush did coke, too.

Duh.

Peter Blogdanovich said...

Thank god I didn't make "The list of shame". You won't track me down and kill me once The One is in power will you? I promise, I'll be good from now on.

Michael said...

Peter Blogdanovich: It's not shameful to be a wingnut, just sad.

Roger J. said...

Wow--I didnt make Michaels list--what I dont know is: a good thing or a bad thing?

Donn said...

Michael: It's not shameful to be a moonbat, just sad.

Dr Zen said...

If Ms Nuthouse had the least sense of shame, the utter retardedness of the people who agree with her would be a worry to her.

Maybe you should all consider the slightly more obvious answer: Brokaw strongly favours McCain and always has, and the bias you see in NBC is basically an outcome of your desire for every outlet everywhere to push antiliberal hate at every opportunity. The idea that the American media is biased against conservatives is so totally laughable. I mean, fucksake, Obama took McCain to the cleaners in that debate and still there's the suggestion that it was in some way a draw.

JB__ said...

Dr. Zen,

So, in your considered opinion Roger Simon of the Politico is a right-wing stooge?

Alex said...

Hmm...to follow Dr. Zen's logic, Roger Simon of the Politico must be some kind of right-wing stooge: "John McCain was very lucky that he decided to show up for the first presidential debate in Oxford, Miss., Friday night. Because he gave one of his strongest debate performances ever. While Barack Obama repeatedly tried to link McCain to the very unpopular George W. Bush, Bush's name will not be on the ballot in November and McCain's will. And McCain not only found a central theme but hit on it repeatedly. Obama is inexperienced, naive, and just doesn't understand things, McCain said. Sure, McCain is a pretty old guy for a presidential candidate, but he showed the old guy did not mind mixing it up. He stood behind a lectern for 90 minutes without a break -- you try that when you are 72 -- and he not only gave as good as he got, he seemed to relish it more. At least twice after sharp attacks by McCain, Obama seemed to look to moderator Jim Lehrer for help, sa ying to Lehrer, 'Let's move on.'" (

AllenS said...

I demand to be put on the rightwingnut list!

aimai said...

Look, the first obvious question to ask was "was the poll assertion even true?" and the fact of the matter was--it wasn't. The poll did not put McCain over Obama but Obama over McCain. So why say it if it weren't true? AGain, as someone pointed out up above, Occam's razor would say that Brokaw lied about McCain's status, giving him a higher status than he does with the american people, to help McCain. It doesn't "help NBC" with their perceived coverage since if they are bending over to please Obama's supporters at all they are doing it for the reason that they think those supporters are more numerous and more energized and therefore more active viewers. The only place it "helps NBC" with "neutrality" is with *other pundits*.

But lets look at the actual phrase "in fairness..." That refers to the fact that Brokaw himself must think that Obama's supporter made McCain look like a fool on the internatioanl front, as did Obama's performance at the debate. "In fairness" seems to want to balance things for McCain, like a cookie to a child who got hurt. Lets try to remember that McCain's biggest fan base has always been the press--many of whom consider themselves personal friends and who are almost as old as he is. It is far more likely that Brokaw feels personal pain at seeing his friend go down so heavily int he polls and in public opinion and is simply offering him a kind of consolation prize.

aimai

Seven Machos said...

Lots of Occam's Razor talk from new loons.

Strange.

Is there a factory somewhere?

Ann Althouse said...

If there was a Palladian Bissage, he would be awesome.

geekesque said...

The answer, quite simply, is that Tom "Greatest Generation" Brokaw has a sentimental man crush on McCain because of his POW background. In that respect, he's stuck in 2000 when everyone else in the press corps felt similarly about McCain.

Carl said...

So in other words, Ann, by threatening to sue Sadly, No! you’re actually in *favor* of the anonymous spoofing?

Which makes about as much sense as the crap you just posted here.

jim said...

"It happened. Do you have an alternative explanation?"

Bias. No, not toward Obama. When in doubt, try common sense. Arcane theories about "compensation" aren't compatible with the intent of TeeVee Pundits - the only place they display "balance" is in their self-aggrandizing promo spiels - you're seeing what isn't there.

After all that partisan gas, perhaps it is fair to state the fact -- and it is a fact -- that according to polls, most voters think McCain is better.

Epic fail.

The big 3 networks are transparetly always in the tank for the dems so every once in awhile they'll toss a bone to the republicans.

Oh, you mean like when they repeatedly edit out McCain's most pathetic gaffes? Or swing polls in his favor by oversampling GOP voters, & then give them extra-heavy exposure? Or ignore his affair with lobbyist Vicki Iseman completely, yet solemnly investigate Obama's possible connections to the sex-scandal slurs of a homeless crack addict? Or spend all of two days on his inability to distinguish Shi'a from Sunni, while making Rev. Wright into a prime-time household name for weeks? Or gently toss him softball interviews? Quite a lot of prime-cut meat on those bones, I'd say. Good thing for Obama that the MSM is "in the tank" for him, huh?

When it comes to polls, national percentages are a canard - the electoral vote is the only number that really counts on election-day. See a pattern here?

Wilson said...

"When you cannot win an argument, you resort to the insult. That is the progressive tactic.

I do not have to prove anything to the likes of a sub human like you. I proved it everyday for almost thirty years. You have done nothing worthwhile." Peter V. Bella

I love when hypocrites call out progressives for insulting tactics and then proceed to insult as if it's perfectly alright for them. Pot calling the kettle much?
Settle down Barney Fife, we subhumans are just pulling your chain before you send us to the work camps.

reader_iam said...

Michael, it's interesting, the way you put that list together, conveniently leaving off every commenter who obviously falls into one (or more) of your categories. Ah--I get it! It's a trick question.

GTFOOH said...

I thought is was just me, that notice the obvious favoritism Brokaw was showing the McCain campaign. Russert would never have done it. And is'nt is exactly what Brokaw was complaining about Olbermann and Matthews doing? Showing favoritism to one side, over the other? He's actually been pretty lousy as the Moderator, since he took over. I really wish the would give the show to David Schuster. He deserves a show more than Gregory or Maddow did!

tariely said...

Мультфильмы онлайн
Электронная почта без регистрации