- Joined
- Apr 28, 2007
- Messages
- 17,108
- Reaction score
- 5,786
- Location
- Nationwide...
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
Look at the expression on her face. To me, it exuded pure hatred towards Obama and Michelle. I think there are ways to express disagreement and still look calm and collected. Look at her eyes and mouth---ewwwwwwwwww.
There is no doubt Malkin is a hater. Her existence at this point in time is to attack all things Obama. She's very good at it. Yes, I think she probably hates the Obama's.
To the point, I don't think what she said is "hate speech" in the context of what we commonly refer to it as.
Anytime an interviewer talks over a guest as she is answering a question, it is 'losing cool'. Period.
Had they been two guests on another show with opposing viewpoints, then it interrupting, while rude, would be a bit more understandable.
He interrupted several times because he didn't LIKE what she was saying.
Then, after his meek and meager squeeks of protest, she used him.
She used NBC to sell books, I'll give you that. Otherwise, her responses are so freighted with lies that, if I were Lauer, I wouldn't know what to spend my 3 minutes on. Which is what she counts on.
It's funny how any criticism of Obama, for you, is a "lie."
If you can point out with specificity what she said that is a lie, please do. Otherwise, you're simply an Obamaton water-carrier.
If you want to point out with specificity what she said was true, please do! I'd love to read it, Harshaw! I'm all eyes........
He made the accusation; it's up to him to provide support for it. I made no claims about it needing support.
Every inch of this administration is rife with corruption and cronyism and it's about time they look in the mirror and admit it.
She tried to claim that by extending unemployment benefits you extend joblessness even more because people would delay accepting a job until 3 weeks before benefits run out.
Lauer exposed this far-right wanna-be pundit for what she is -- a second tier right-winger with inane talking points.
He exposed nothing. He didn't even say anything.
Is your internet broken -- can you not watch the clip?:doh
Dude, dial-up is so 1995. Get broadband!
Anytime an interviewer talks over a guest as she is answering a question, it is 'losing cool'. Period.
Had they been two guests on another show with opposing viewpoints, then it interrupting, while rude, would be a bit more understandable.
He interrupted several times because he didn't LIKE what she was saying.
Then, after his meek and meager squeeks of protest, she used him.
So what did he say that was so damning of her?
He exposed nothing. He didn't even say anything.
So what did he say that was so damning of her?
You really don't get how an interview works. You're so used to the partisan back and fourth, that you think unless he stoops to her level of 2nd rate partisan hackery, she somehow 'wins'.
He asked questions. Oh, my god, what a concept. You mean he didn't try to talk over her with prepared counter-points like they do on FNC interviews?
She answered the questions and looked like a inarticulate moron trying to string together as many partisan talking-points catch phrases in one sentence. At least when Sarah Palin does this she looks good being stupid.
An interviewer exposes an interviewee's shortcomings and flaws by asking the right questions and letting them speak.
It's like Palin -- a smart interviewer just plays along (almost playing dumb) and encourages her to explain her views in more detail.
The fact that Lauer holds a straight face for as long as he does, is amazing. By the end, anyone would be dumbfounded and almost punch drunk by the nonsensical craziness that comes out of her mouth. But it really does feel like a forced, almost faux-craziness, as if Malkin's scripted herself to try to out- Coulter, Annie.
She wants so bad to be as outrageous and provocative as Coulter. But Ann Coulter's hyper-partisanship is way more polished and out there on a lunatic fringe. She's also got the hyperbolic digs on the left down pat.
Malkin just doesn't have that interesting of a personality. Too bookish--her attempts at humor just fall flat. She often looks like she's expecting a laugh, but only gets crickets chirping.
Nothing. That's how you respond when someone says something so ridiculous, it leaves you speechless.
No, it's how you show elitism. If it was so ridiculous, then he probably should have asked how she could prove everything.
Usually, when you want to show that someone "exposed" the other person, you'll use quotes and explain why those quotes expose the person. What you posted is nothing more than a long rant. You obviously don't like her, but you haven't shown me that he "exposed" her.
Let's see, Rahm Emmanuel is chief of staff, Hillary(who actually fits the position to be honest) Got a position for playing ball and getting on board, Joe Biden was rewarded for playing ball, Geitner(tax cheat in charge of tax policy?), Gibbs as press secretary?!. Let's face it aps, there is as much cronyism in this administration as the last one, if not more.She said: "Every inch of this administration is rife with corruption and cronyism and it's about time they look in the mirror and admit it."
Lying is very specific, it's not a matter of opinion, either someone willfully distorted or hid the truth or they didn't. I can't stand WillRockwell's opinions because they are based on wanting a specific outcome and biased in that regard.This is a matter of opinion. It is Will's opinion that she lies. What's the big deal?
Care to explain to the group how an interview works instead of telling others they "just don't get it"? I went to college for broadcasting and know how to interview, I also watched the clip, there were quite a few times Lauer used phrasing tactics to try to get a "gotcha" moment. He editorialized much of the time in question form, so please do tell how a proper news interview is done so that we can understand.:roll:You really don't get how an interview works.
More elitism, you don't know what others consume as news so that is a very condescending statement.You're so used to the partisan back and fourth, that you think unless he stoops to her level of 2nd rate partisan hackery, she somehow 'wins'.
He asked some good questions, but when he didn't like a point, would load a question to try to soften the blow of a good point.He asked questions. Oh, my god, what a concept. You mean he didn't try to talk over her with prepared counter-points like they do on FNC interviews?
No good interviewer tries to embarass or disprove a guest, to believe that you have shown me that you are the only one that doesn't understand journalism.An interviewer exposes an interviewee's shortcomings and flaws by asking the right questions and letting them speak.
Anytime an interviewer talks over a guest as she is answering a question, it is 'losing cool'. Period.
Had they been two guests on another show with opposing viewpoints, then it interrupting, while rude, would be a bit more understandable.
He interrupted several times because he didn't LIKE what she was saying.
Then, after his meek and meager squeeks of protest, she used him.
You really don't get how an interview works. You're so used to the partisan back and fourth, that you think unless he stoops to her level of 2nd rate partisan hackery, she somehow 'wins'.
He asked questions. Oh, my god, what a concept. You mean he didn't try to talk over her with prepared counter-points like they do on FNC interviews?
She answered the questions and looked like a inarticulate moron trying to string together as many partisan talking-points catch phrases in one sentence. At least when Sarah Palin does this she looks good being stupid.
An interviewer exposes an interviewee's shortcomings and flaws by asking the right questions and letting them speak.
It's like Palin -- a smart interviewer just plays along (almost playing dumb) and encourages her to explain her views in more detail.
The fact that Lauer holds a straight face for as long as he does, is amazing. By the end, anyone would be dumbfounded and almost punch drunk by the nonsensical craziness that comes out of her mouth. But it really does feel like a forced, almost faux-craziness, as if Malkin's scripted herself to try to out- Coulter, Annie.
She wants so bad to be as outrageous and provocative as Coulter. But Ann Coulter's hyper-partisanship is way more polished and out there on a lunatic fringe. She's also got the hyperbolic digs on the left down pat.
Malkin just doesn't have that interesting of a personality. Too bookish--her attempts at humor just fall flat. She often looks like she's expecting a laugh, but only gets crickets chirping.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?