***
"I noticed their list was heavy on bloggers. Perhaps to get hits and links."
IN THE COMMENTS: Palladian says:
Lol. Maureen Dowd? Chris Matthews? Ezra Klein? Oprah?
That's all they've got?
With a couple of notable exceptions, that's a pretty laughable list. But this is Forbes and these are "liberals", so to be expected.
Glenn Greenwald? The world's most effluvious expeller of turgid prose? Well the list is "influential" liberals, not necessarily "talented" liberals.
"The pre-eminent liberal commentator in the American media, his prose is as pungent as his academic credentials are impeccable."
Pungent. Just like a slab of runny French cheese, only not as good on baguettes.
पोस्ट्स
७६ टिप्पण्या:
Some of the 25 are actually good, decent people who happen to be wrong on most things.
Three on the list:
Bill Moyers,
Rachel Maddow,
Hendrick Hertzberg
have shown themselves to be no less than despicable human beings, the equivalents of Michael Savage and David Duke on the right.
A fourth, Maureen Dowd, isn't far away from being in the above class.
My family is friends with James Fallows family, and he is quite charming in person, but he can bristle a bit when you confront him over what you might consider an over-the-top Atlantic article. Sheesh!
Oh, and we'll see if Paul Krugman is honest or a syncophant of Obama soon enough.
From the Krugman entry:
"Last year's Nobel in economics was widely seen as a vindication of his politics."
Perhaps by morons. I guess Mullis' Chemistry Prize should be widely seen as a vindication of his opinion that HIV doesn't cause AIDS.
I hope Michael and Alphaliberal made the list.
At least most of these guys don't bristle at being called liberal. The ones I can't stand are the schmuck's (I'm looking at you Jon Stewart!) who insist they're really moderate. Moderate my eye!
Lol. Maureen Dowd? Chris Matthews? Ezra Klein? Oprah?
That's all they've got?
With a couple of notable exceptions, that's a pretty laughable list. But this is Forbes and these are "liberals", so to be expected.
Glenn Greenwald? The world's most effluvious expeller of turgid prose? Well the list is "influential" liberals, not necessarily "talented" liberals.
"The pre-eminent liberal commentator in the American media, his prose is as pungent as his academic credentials are impeccable."
Pungent. Just like a slab of runny French cheese, only not as good on baguettes.
"At least most of these guys don't bristle at being called liberal. The ones I can't stand are the schmuck's (I'm looking at you Jon Stewart!) who insist they're really moderate. Moderate my eye!"
Oh you mean like that "Conservative Soul", Andrew Sullivan? Where does he find time to be an influential liberal between giving sloppy blowjobs to the former President-Elect and trying to pry into Sarah Palin's pussy?
What? No Michael Moore or Randi Roads? Al Franken isn't considered a media type anymore?
If those are the best, why does the GOP keep losing? Oh, sorry, I forgot about the GOP's "best".
1. We all know about Sully, and we all hope he seeks help.
2. When Drum was at the WaMo, they (Drum or a moderator) kept deleting on-topic, non-abusive comments from me that pointed out how they were wrong. At the same time, their old entries were clogged with the worst spam imaginable. Drum knew about both but did nothing.
3. Ezra Klein is a useful idiot.
4. Yglesias continues to astound with his hackery and constant inability to be intellectually honest. He helped at least three smears and then never printed corrections AFAIK: link, link, link. Here are some questions I posted for him; he did answer another, much easier question that's not on that list.
This is an awful list. How can you have Maddow on it but not Olbermann?
Once again, Sullivan's not a liberal. He's not a conservative (doubtful or otherwise) either.
I'm not sure what he is; neither does he but he's absolutely sure about it anyway.
Me, I can't wait until Sully gets out of the can and explains why Forbes is wrong and why he's the only "true" conservative.
I mean, along with Glenn Greenwald of course...
Palladian,
I thought Sullivan was too obvious. Besides, Jon Stewart annoys me more. I haven't been able to stand him since that appearance on "Crossfire", where he decided he wanted to "serious". So you want to be serious, you want to speak truth to power, and you're sitting across from one of the most poisonous individuals in American politics. The originator of the "politics of personal destruction", and what do you do? You attack the schmuck in the bow-tie!
Anyone who thinks Tucker Carlson is worse for democracy than James Carville is someone whose political eye is too myopic to vote, much less have a TV show.
Great topic!! gives chance to have conservatives say their usual nasty things about Others...venom. venom. venom.
and now let's move on to Rush and gang...
It was weird seeing some of those pictures!
I thought Sullivan was too obvious.
This could be poison for Andy. His ticket-to-party with the liberal elite was always based on his opinion of himself as the "conservative-who-speaks-truth-to-Bush's-evil". To be actually pegged as liberal exposes him for ......
Well, he's been outed.
Again
Ya think if Forbes would have done one on "50 most influential ..." that David Brooks would have made the cut?
The list of the 25 Most Influential Liberals In The U.S. Media looks just like America!
At least, gated community white America. Plus a really rich black lady.
... and two limeys.
"It was weird seeing some of those pictures!"
I know. Considering that 99.9% of the "beautiful people" are liberals, you'd think this would be a more attractive group. Aside from the fuckable-but-brainless twink Ezra Klein, the word that comes to mind looking at this group is: doughy. That and "paranoid eyes".
"Great topic!! gives chance to have conservatives say their usual nasty things about Others...venom. venom. venom."
Maybe if you hang around long enough we'll inject you with enough venom that you'll die.
I'd never seen a photo of Hertzberg before. He looks like he has not been out of doors for the last 14 years.
I am trying to imagine them all in some group activity.
A NASCAR race?
Building a house for Habitat for Humanity (each with a personal Latino assistant?)
A barbeque in Midland, Texas?
A Wal-Mart grand opening?
Who are these people "influencing"? Columns touting the influence of people on a list like this are always a bit strange -- the supposedly "influenced" never include the people putting the list together. The lead author of this one, Tunku Varadarajan, is a former writer for the WSJ and is a conservative guy. There's a little vortex at work here, even at a place like Forbes.
Oh, good lord...
Thoroughly snide comments about liberals, authored by right wing losers that frequent this site every day of the week, and who bitch and whine about anything and everything with which they do not agree.
Why not start a thread discussing Jews by Nazis?
Or Blacks by members of the KKK?
Most of the people mentioned on this list have the kind of credentials that have allowed them to become respected contributors to major news organizations, television and film.
Unlike anybody here.
This is just another example of Ann Althouse and her usual sour grapes relating to anyone who garners more attention herself.
Pitiful and rather embarrassing, especially for one who is in her position with a university.
I can't believe all of the incredibly shallow comments relating to how the people "look."
Have you ever seen a picture of Einstein?
Bill Gates?
Steve Wozniak?
How about Stephen Hawkings?
Bill Kristol?
Brit Hume?
Ann Coulter?
Bill O'Reilly?
Michael Savage?
Matt Drudge?
Jonah Goldberg?
"so many bloggers"?
given how liberal the "liberal mainstream media" is, how could it be otherwise?
Once again, Sullivan's not a liberal. He's not a conservative (doubtful or otherwise) either.
Yeah, but since "narcissist" isn't a widely-recognized political affiliation he tends to get lumped in with one of the normal ones. :)
The list is pretty bad.
Andrew Sullivan is an absurd inclusion, as are Fred Hiatt and Gerald Seib, none of whom are liberals. And Chris Matthews sucks up to Tom Delay more than any liberal ever would.
And I love Yglesias but economics is not his strong suit at all.
Most of the people mentioned on this list have the kind of credentials that have allowed them to become respected contributors to major news organizations, television and film.
Unlike anybody here.
Actually sorry to disppoint you Michael, but from 1997 to 2002 I was interviewed by local media no less than 43 times for opinion, mostly because I was a leader in a regional political/community cause. I even made it on the weekend national ABC News for about 5 seconds. So, I know at least a smidgen of what it's like to have your words and face out there as a talking head.
In addition, I have spoken in person with several of the people listed (as noted about James Fallows) and several are actually nice people. But several are definitely not.
So, because that fits your definition of qualified, I now state that everything said by the other commenters above is valid.
Happy to help.
Actually sorry to disppoint you Michael, but from 1997 to 2002 I was interviewed by local media no less than 43 times for opinion
HAHAHAHAHAHA
Great!
Obama now makes sure that my tax dollars go to pay for some middle class South American woman's abortion.
Classy!
Maybe if you hang around long enough we'll inject you with enough venom that you'll die.
Heh. You would think it would get less funny upon each reading, but no, it's not.
Dolan: "Who are these people "influencing"?"
Dolan, wake up. If you don't think that, say, Oprah, Stewart, Seib and many others are very influential, you are charmingly out of touch. A few just preach to the choir, and some like Mathews have become so predictable and shallow that nobody listens. But their opinions register and move opinion, but apparently not yours.
Host,
That will be taken care of on your tax return. Just be sure not to check the box where it asks if you want $1 of you return to go to South American abortions.
Michael, will you ever learn to make a point without turning it into a personal insult? It's getting tedious.
Ann Althouse said...
"It was weird seeing some of those pictures!"
I'd never seen Kevin Drum before. Why does he look like that slightly weird and weirdly overenthusiastic math or science teacher many of us had?
I like Yglesias and Friedman, and -ahem!- Dowd is pleasant to watch. With the sound down. Some of these people are notable only for how urgently they need to be slapped, however, and four of them - I won't say which - are such vile pieces of work that I wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire, as they say. Their deletion from the human catalog will be welcomed in these quarters.
SMGalbraith said...
"Sullivan's not a liberal. He's not a conservative (doubtful or otherwise) either. ¶ I'm not sure what he is
I'm very sure what he is, I just can't repeat it in polite company.
Host: "I was interviewed by local media no less than 43 times for opinion, mostly because I was a leader in a regional political/community cause."
It's nice that you got to be interviewed but...what does any of that have to do with being an "influential" part of the American media, liberal or conservative?
Have you published opinions, interviews or articles in any major publications?
David said..."Michael, will you ever learn to make a point without turning it into a personal insult? It's getting tedious."
David, when people post inane, politically motivated and thoroughly shallow comments about respected people who are actually doing something of substance, whether you agree with their specific politics or not...you deserve what you get.
Please tell me what the appearance of a journalist has to do with their work or abilities?
I was surprised not to see Katrina Van Den Heuvel (or whatever her name is) there. When I used to turn on the TV she was always on whenever they wanted a liberal POV. I would imagine The Nation would have mde the cut. What about Katie Couric or Frank Rich or Bob Herbert. None of the Chicago people made the cut? Not a very good list IMNSHO.
Michael, you insulted Althouse by saying that she can't stand for others to get attention. What was the point of that?
If you are right about something, you are far more likely to convince others by avoiding personal insult. Personal insults usually cause revulsion against those making them, not the person insulted.
The appearance of a journalist has nothing to do with their work or abilities. I never said it did. I did say that Hertzberg looks like he never goes outside. I said so because I found that interesting. I did not say anything about his abilities.
From the look of tv today, with the array of babes and studs (especially babes), the way one looks does seem to help people get hired though.
oh God...Oprah..the narcissist queen with a savior complex...and a need to shop at stores long after they're closed. She and her stepford army have done more damage then the other 24 on that list combined.
How is Fareed Zakaria a "liberal"?
John Althouse Cohen said...
"How is Fareed Zakaria a 'liberal'?"
What views does he hold at odds with those associated with modern American liberalism?
How is Fareed Zakaria a "liberal"?
A conservative would never think about a "Post-American World".
Michael, I took a closer look at your initial post. Here are some of your gems.
"Right wing losers . . ." (generalization about commenters)
"Nazi . . . KKK" Kaching! The lowest form of argument right in the second paragraph.
Plus the unnecessary Althouse insult.
I know you won't listen, Michael. We are all fools in some way, but you insist on publicizing the fact.
Mainly the swipe at Althouse pissed me off. You are ungracious to your hostess, who kindly keeps the door open to you despite your rudeness.
Why do people keep responding to Michael long after he was asked to leave and despite all-but unanimity on the point that he has nothing of worth to say? Just ignore him. If everyone does, eventually he will go away when he doesn't get a rise.
dick said...
"I was surprised not to see Katrina Van Den Heuvel ... there. When I used to turn on the TV she was always on whenever they wanted a liberal POV."
They only get her when Pelosi isn't available. She's a more reliable mouthpiece for the liberal leadership and their boilerplate than the majority leader is.
In John Althouse Cohen's world, anyone who ever met Paul Wolfowitz and didn't perform a citizen's arrest for war crimes loses their liberal license.
And you know what it's like to be a non-licentious liberal.
Simon--you are right and I will follow your advice hereafter.
"Why do people keep responding to Michael long after he was asked to leave and despite all-but unanimity on the point that he has nothing of worth to say? Just ignore him. If everyone does, eventually he will go away when he doesn't get a rise."
I don't get it either. But I don't know if ignoring him will make him go away. Deranged psychology teachers from Western community colleges can be a stubborn lot.
It seems to me that Sullivan's a cultural liberal but not (yet), I don't think, a political one. Although I think the transition will be complete shortly.
It's clear that he's delinked traditionalism from the anti-rationalism of Oakeshott or conservatism. So, if you have "doubt" with no tradition, you come up with a cultural liberal relativism.
On the other hand, two years from know who the hell knows what he'll be saying?
Zakaria is clearly liberal on domestic issues. Pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, et cetera. As to his foreign policy views, he's a liberal internationalist who believes that American power can be a positive in the world.
On that, he may be distinguished from the Greenwalds and other hardcore liberals who think American power is almost always harmful.
Liberal domestically, centrist internationally.
Wow.
Four women? Or was it five?
Out of 25?
I'm impressed.
"How is Fareed Zakaria a 'liberal'?"
What views does he hold at odds with those associated with modern American liberalism?
He thinks opposing Islamic extremism is a good idea. :)
we'll see if Paul Krugman is honest or a syncophant of Obama soon enough.
You want more off-beat topics from him?
other hardcore liberals who think American power is almost always harmful
That depends on who's wielding it and if it actually helps American interests or security.
That photo of Krugman is priceless.
That depends on who's wielding it and if it actually helps American interests or security.
Hmm, not with the paleo-liberals or New Left crowd. I can't think of a single use of US power that they've supported over the past half-century.
For them, any use of American power is done for the behalf of some nefarious group.
They even opposed removing Saddam from Iraq despite UN and world support for it.
If there are exceptions, I can't think of any.
SMGalbraith said...
"It's clear that [Andrew Sullivan]'s delinked traditionalism from the anti-rationalism of Oakeshott or conservatism. So, if you have "doubt" with no tradition, you come up with a cultural liberal relativism."
He's delinked the posession of a brain and heart from their use. His behavior vis-à-vis Palin last fall made me envious of those who believe in hell. As I recall, his book invokes Oakeshott frequently, and I fancy that had Oakeshott lived to see it, he would have burned everything he ever wrote.
"I can't think of a single use of US power that [the left] supported over the past half-century."
Kosovo (which happened) and Darfur (which hasn't, yet, but has been proposed many times). I agree with them on those points, myself. I think that in a discussion here some time ago, someone on the left suggested - or maybe I characterized their position and they agreed with it - that the liberal view seems to be that American military power can and should be used for humanitarian ends is acceptable when it is genuinely disinterested (i.e. no discernible American interests beyond sheer altruismare involved).
I think there's something to be said for that; perhaps someone could tell me - I wasn't in the country, so I have no idea - where liberals stood on sending American ground troops to Bosnia in the early 1990s? I think it was an important formative experience on me watching that slow-mo catastophe unfolding on the 6 o'clock news every night over dinner and wondering where the fuck are the grown ups? When is someone going to step in and DO something about this? (This experience probably also formed my belief that the only thing inaccurate about John Bolton's famous summation of the United Nations is that he understated the case by 28 floors).
HAHAHA!!! What a ridiculous list. Seriously, influential liberals is a contradiction in terms. What do they influence from their fraudulent ideology. They believe in a complete lie and they continually distribute that lie and Forbes thinks this requires a list of knowing liars and their ideology of lies?
Katy Couric? Shouldn't she be on the list?
One thing about conservatives - they've got more babes. 'Specially on Fox.
For your information, Mr. Greenwald has written a New York Times bestselling book on executive authority, broken a story on his blog about wiretapping that led to front-page stories on most major newspapers in the country, and Russ Feingold reads from his blog.
As for Bill Moyers - I thought he was dead.
Matt Y needs to shave or take some steroids. That goatee is ridiculous - maybe Rachael Maddow can loan him some Testosterone.
And I like Matt - its just, lose it man.
I am quite surprised by the omission of Rachel Ray from the list.
She is wealthy, lives in Manhattan, appears in damn near all the media, loves dogs and is married to a lawyer.
Her influence in the advancement of the arugula cause has had a profound impact on President Obama.
She has a larger audience than Maureen Dowd and Rachel Maddow.
Simon, I think SMG was referring to the ANSWER left. Those folks want the US military to fight itself into the ground.
For years, MacNeil/Lehrer opened with whatever banality Clinton spoke on camera that day and the latest atrocity in Bosnia.
Michael H said...
"One thing about conservatives - they've got more babes. 'Specially on Fox."
Tina Fey.
"I am quite surprised by the omission of Rachel Ray from the list."
Is she a liberal? I'd be surprised if she was; she worked hard to build herself up from relatively humble beginnings to a nice business that has blossomed. That sounds like the bio of a Republican to me.
Oh,I see President Obama is shutting down Guantanamo Bay. I guess it can be done after all. Althouse's right-wing commenters are wrong again.
The guests now enjoying our resort at Gitmo should be air lifted in a single flight to Saudi Arabia for their Mission Accomplished awards dinner. The Bush clan never wanted to embarrass the Feisal clan, but Obama just doesn't care about any protocol that sucks up the expeditures of money that Rahm has better plans for over at his Chicago clan headquarters.
What views does he hold at odds with those associated with modern American liberalism?
No, the burden is on those applying the specific label to justify it. What views does he hold that are associated with liberalism?
A conservative would never think about a "Post-American World".
Oh, really? What a damning indictment of conservatives -- that they would ignore reality.
But anyway, Zakaria does NOT take the position that America's going to stop being #1. I actually think he might be overly optimistic about America. But surely you've at least glanced at his book and so you're aware that he argues that we'll decline only in relative importance, while remaining #1, because the other countries will engage in the American way of doing things since capitalism has been such a resounding success. That actually sounds fairly conservative to me, but maybe you have a different interpretation of his book than I do.
@Simon - The Rachel Ray comment was an attempt at late night humor.
Zakaria is clearly liberal on domestic issues.
Maybe, but is he at all noted for expressing his views on domestic issues?
Bill O'Reilly is against the death penalty and in favor of environmental regulation. But I'll bet you don't consider him an "influential liberal in the media."
I used to think that influential liberal thinkers mostly influenced liberal thinkers. The old joke was that radicals took over the English Dept. and conservatives took over the Defense Dept. But Obama is President. These people must have influenced somebody.... I can't picture anybody looking at Rachel Maddow and saying I never looked at the issue that way before but, by God, she's right. It's hard enough to believe that these preachers have a choir, much less that they attract converts. But Obama won.....Add to the list of influential liberal thinkers James Bond. The last flick took a swipe at coerced interrogations and CIA inpspired military coups in South America. Even when you don't go to their church, they give you a sermon.
"Oh,I see President Obama is shutting down Guantanamo Bay. I guess it can be done after all. Althouse's right-wing commenters are wrong again."
Gitmo is shut down? Really? Do you know something the rest of the world doesn't? Where did all the prisoners go? That Obama is something, isnt he? Closed down the place in just a couple of days!
Get back to me when it's actually closed.
"As for Bill Moyers - I thought he was dead."
Only intellectually. Common mistake.
I think SMG was referring to the ANSWER left. Those folks want the US military to fight itself into the ground.
Actually, I was referring (and should have been more specific) to more mainstream groups like the Moveon and Nation magazine crowd.
Moveon, for example, was against going into Afghanistan after 9/11.
As to Kosovo, doing a quick search shows that they appear to have been silent.
Kosovo is a good example showing where I was wrong re opposition by the left to the deployment of American power (although they probably were critical of Clinton's failure to get UN approval or Congressional authorization before taking action).
I stand by my claim that Zakaria's a liberal but someone less hostile to the use of American power (hard and soft) than the more ideological left.
And it shows that just as there are major differences between the conservatism of a Limbaugh and that of a David Brooks, there are significant differences between the liberalism of a Zakaria and that of a Glenn Greenwald.
I stand by my claim that Zakaria's a liberal
Based on what evidence?
If these are what Forbes thinks are the most influential liberals, both Forbes and liberalism have jumped the shark.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा