Maybe the truth is I actually loathe these shows, and I'm only watching to find what I loathe most because encountering something loathed leads to blogging, which I love. But there's always something bloggable. I don't need this ritual ordeal of slogging through those shows. The blog rolls on, with or without the damned shows.
But maybe it was something about this week. Did I anticipate particular stories that I didn't want to have to hear about? Cosby? Obama's executive order? Analyzing a Ferguson riot before it happens? Israel and Iran?
Trying to analyze my own resistance, I remember something I saw in the comments yesterday. The Godfather wrote:
Ann, for the first time since I've been reading your blog, you have posted absolutely nothing today in which I have any interest.You may remember that the subheading to this blog was (for a long time): "Politics and the aversion to politics, law and law school, high and low culture, and the way things look from Madison, Wisconsin." If you search this blog for "the aversion to politics," you'll find a lot of posts, including: "Political blogging with an aversion to politics: my little corner of the blogosphere."
I do not say this as a criticism, but rather as praise. It's remarkable that in five or more years every day you have posted something of interest to ME, with my own peculiar tastes. Tonight, I'll rest.
I'm always getting back to my old attraction to aversion.
পোস্টগুলি
২৮টি মন্তব্য:
Growing up, I always thought of Sunday morning shows as being for people who didn't go to church; but who needed something high-minded to do anyway.
I didn't watch either although later in the day, I saw part of Meet the Press. It was a shouting match between two black agitators and Rudy Giuliani, who seemed to be enjoying himself. Rudy tells these people the truth to which they react like vampires to garlic or sunlight.
The Iran thing is too disguising to watch. It's like a slow motion train wreck, which come to think of it, this whole government resembles.
You missed Rudi Giuliani drive Georgetown professor Michael Eric Dyson crazy on Meet the Press when he pointed out 93% of Blacks are killed by other Blacks and he should be protesting and fixing that situation instead of protesting the shooting of Michael Brown by a white policeman.
Then Rudi said if Blacks stopped committing so many Black on Black crimes, white police officers would not have to be such a big presence in Black communities.
Fireworks ensued.
Hell, Althouse, use the DVR so you can zip past the things you don't want to hear about. For instance, any pontificating by Mr. Potato Head, Karl Rove, zip, and he's gone. Xavier Becerra?zip. Anything from anybody in the obama adminstration? zip
I'd get tired of being lied to for hours. Who else is lied to as much as people watching politicians on TV? Lawyers? Children?
And you missed Michael,Brown family lawyer Benjamin Crump tell George Stephanopoulos that the grand jury process was completely unfair and he had never seen anything like it in 20 years of practice.
This is very odd. I rarely watch the Sunday shows, but did yesterday because Ted Cruz and Greg Abbott, my senator and guv-to-be, were on with Chris Wallace. I would give that a go just to learn that Abbott has sued Obama 31 times and is about to make it 32.
and Abbott said he had won more than half of those suits.
How about them apples?
Even God rested on the seventh day. I've been missing these shows for about four decades now. That's working out pretty well for me. I try to enjoy my Sundays, why ruin them with a bunch of spinners, liars, prostitutes, and thieves?
When I went to bed the Giants were winning 21 to 10 and Odel had made the bestest reception in league history. If anything happened after that, I don't want to know.
Analyzing a Ferguson riot before it happens?
Actually, they've been having little mini-riots there every night. The press doesn't cover that, mostly.
Apparently, the facts in the case are not relevant.
I usually watch Fox News Sunday and Meet the Press, but yesterday I chose to clean the garage.
Oh, I think watching Xavier Becerra defending the administration's immigration policies on Fox News Sunday, spoke volumes about those policies.
A light blew out on FNS when Becerra was lying lying lying his lying lyers ass off.
It was a sign from God that this man is evil.
"Hell, Althouse, use the DVR so you can zip past the things you don't want to hear about. For instance, any pontificating by Mr. Potato Head, Karl Rove, zip, and he's gone. Xavier Becerra?zip. Anything from anybody in the obama adminstration? zip"
Of course, I do that, but it's still some effort and you have to want to see some of it enough to start that up and go through that routine.
"Did you miss anything?" Is there ever anything worth seeing on these programs, ever any truly startling revelations or trenchant critiques of the prevailing "state of the nation?"
These shows rotate the same approved coterie of dubious "experts" and government propagandists over and over, and never will be heard anything but the established line. The hosts are there merely to tease out and affirm from their guests acceptable dogma, and not at all to challenge it.
Something in the air, maybe? I'm feeling rather hopeless about our leadership and figure my life is better focused on issues I, personally, can do something about. Is this how low information voters are made?
Agree with Robert Cook.
Never watch them. No regrets
- Krumhorn
Didn't watch the talk shows, but the top story on NBC was the suspension of fraternities at University of Virginia. This was in response to an alleged gang rape of a student two years ago, covered by Rolling Stone, that wasn't reported to police. I didn't think it would be covered in this blog, but it did create a burr in my saddle.
Blame the weather. I took a nice long nap while the rain poured down. Hard to feel energy to do much of anything when it's a dark and drippy day.
I watched the interview of Obama by George Stephanopoulos. George actually asked some fairly tough questions about Obama's volte face on immigration and the precedent that Obama has set for executive action....My level of cynicism is such that I suspect that market research has shown that newscasters have to ask an honest question every third show in order to give credibility to their overarching mission of tongue bathing the Democrats.....Obama gave some adroit answers even though he was caught in some obvious whoppers. Again, my cynicism is such that I'm sure George would have given him a do-over if he had flubbed the answer.
I gave up after Russert. His interrogation style is history. The panel discussions were always partisan, but the spinners were clearly defined and separated by someone with a semblance of impartiality. Now the shows are meta, the discussion topics ignore hot button issues if they damage the wrong side and instead distort and obfuscate by missing the mark or fighting straw men.
These programs are a pretty much worthless. The guest largely sticks to the talking points and bromides that have been prescripted for them. The panel or host try to trip the guest up with gotta ya!s questions or lavish effusive praise and soft balls on pols they like. Waste of time really. Unless you have a long format interview like with C-Span where you can drill down with follow ups and the guest can explain and expand with their remarks, I'd just as soon pass on this sound bite shuck and jive shit that the networks serve up.
I've taken ten years off from watching the Sunday talk shows. Did I miss anything?
Well, I thought this was a big deal, Obamadissing Hillary in code:
President Obama set off ripples in the political world Sunday morning when he said voters in the 2016 presidential race will want "that new car smell." Speaking with ABC's George Stephanopoulos, Obama said in picking a new leader, Americans will "want to drive something off the lot that doesn't have as much mileage as me."
Hillary has a LOT more mileage on her than Obama.
I used to enjoy watching the Sunday morning talk shows, while discussing the Sunday New York Times with my sweetheart. Eventually, we realized that if you gave us a topic, we could predict what would be said on the shows and in the paper with great accuracy. It was boring. Now, we discuss Althouse and Meade, instead.
(Previous comment deleted to fix typos.)
I havn't watched any of these shows in years, and I'm certain I have not missed anything worth knowing about.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন