NBC's Brzezinski: I'm "Working With The White House" On Oil Spill Talking Points

[samsmart]

If an anchor said "Well, the Obama administration has argued X, how would you respond to that?," that's both common and acceptable. The reason why it's so common is because it's an honest way to have a discussion - if you're repeating something from an interested party, you identify that party, lay it out for the audience, and treat it no differently than you would an assertion from the other side.

When she is repeating talking points that she compiled with or received from the Obama administration, and citing those talking points as an argument rather than a jumping off point, that's much different. She's gone from being a (somewhat) neutral party to becoming an advocate for the party she's representing. It's just entirely unprofessional and pretty pathetic on her part. If a host can't summon up the brainpower to develop their own take on a subject, they shouldn't be talking about it.

Okay. We obviously differ in our opinions. So be it.

Calling Obama an America-hating terrorist is another way to sell commercials, but that would be ****ty journalism as well.

And yet Fox News and it's conservative supporters claims it's the best news network because it makes more money than the other news network by inferring such things.

 

[RightinNYC]

And yet Fox News and it's conservative supporters claims it's the best news network because it makes more money than the other news network by inferring such things.

And you rightly criticize Fox when it does that, which is why I'm having trouble understanding why you're defending MSNBC on this.

****ty, unprofessional and biased journalism is ****ty, unprofessional and biased journalism whether it's from the left or the right.

 

[samsmart]

And you rightly criticize Fox when it does that, which is why I'm having trouble understanding why you're defending MSNBC on this.

****ty, unprofessional and biased journalism is ****ty, unprofessional and biased journalism whether it's from the left or the right.

Because I don't think that particular issue is ****ty, unprofessional and biased journalism. Rather, I think other practices that Fox News has pursued is ****ty, unprofessional and biased journalism.

 

[zimmer]

FWIW, if you think an issue is important, having an op that leaves out all of the relevant details and instead includes bull**** generalizations and Birther conspiracy theory material is not the best way to encourage discussion. It also prevents the rest of us from starting a reasonable thread about the topic thanks to your poisoning of the well.

For those who actually want to talk about the issue:



Mika Admits: I'm 'Working With White House' On Oil Spill Talking Points | NewsBusters.org

Can you explain this post?

.

 

[RightinNYC]

Can you explain this post?

.

What's confusing about it?

There are plenty of topics that are worth discussing. When you create a thread like this, where you essentially ignore the actual article and instead use the OP as a springboard to launch into a generic rant about Democrats in toto or your Birther "Obi" bull****, it frequently results in an entirely off-topic bicker session, thus ruining the possibility of any productive debate. It's depressing, and I wish it didn't happen so frequently.

 

[justabubba]

Can you explain this post?

What's confusing about it?

There are plenty of topics that are worth discussing. When you create a thread like this, where you essentially ignore the actual article and instead use the OP as a springboard to launch into a generic rant about Democrats in toto or your Birther "Obi" bull****, it frequently results in an entirely off-topic bicker session, thus ruining the possibility of any productive debate. It's depressing, and I wish it didn't happen so frequently.

translation: no i can't

 

[Ockham]

Because I don't think that particular issue is ****ty, unprofessional and biased journalism. Rather, I think other practices that Fox News has pursued is ****ty, unprofessional and biased journalism.

The bottom line with you is, it's not a big deal when it's a Democrat defending a Democrat, but it's EXPECTED ****ty, unprofessional and biased with it's on the other political side. Got it.

 

[zimmer]

What's confusing about it?

There are plenty of topics that are worth discussing. When you create a thread like this, where you essentially ignore the actual article and instead use the OP as a springboard to launch into a generic rant about Democrats in toto or your Birther "Obi" bull****, it frequently results in an entirely off-topic bicker session, thus ruining the possibility of any productive debate. It's depressing, and I wish it didn't happen so frequently.

OK... now it's clear. I was curious what all that venting and blather was about. The Birther crap was wholly confusing. I was trying to figure out if Giuliani had said something about it.

First off... I used the term Obi from Nairobi for fun, but I am not and have never been a Birther.
That bee has somehow stuck in your bonnet, even though I have explained it to you before.
Capiche? If not... go find my Birther threads or posts. You won't find any. Capiche?

Second... The OP was a VIDEO CLIP from realclearpolitics.com.
Go look. Look, look, look.
I posted it in its entirety. I didn't see any other news items on the subject. So I did not ignore ANYTHING. Capiche?

I think an apology is in order... but I'm not done yet.

Third, I don't give a rats ass what you think about my OP's or how I decide to start a thread. Really. I like to poke fun... and if it irritates the opposition or folks like you... tough darts mate. Am I breaking rules? I haven't heard squat from the Mod Squad... and when I have been penalized... I haven't repeated the error. (except for posting in wrong forums now and again)... If these OP's are breaking the rules... then slap the points down. Isn't that how it works?

Forth, I believe the threads I start are well visited. I could be wrong... You have the stats... why not crunch 'em.

Fifth, If the opposition gets into bickering... WTF else is new? Are you going to run around and criticize their posts?

RNYC, You go about you business your way, in this case you repeated a false accusation about something that got under your skirt and hasn't let go. I'll go about my business my way.

Or do we all have to fit into yer little box?

I think you should lighten up a bit.

If you think people here are going to change their minds through facts... ROTFLMFAO... try again. Sometimes a little ridicule is in order, or a lot to have a hope.

And as a last bit. Sometimes the best thing you can do is shut down the debate fast. Sun-Tzu said the best thing is to not have to fight. If one post kills the thread... so be it... the post and poster has done its job.

Joe Sestak Disease, a rare form of Tourette Syndrome is emerging from Democrats

.... now that was funny... original... and related to the fact some strange things have emerged from the mouths of Democrats... THE TRUTH!... of course... for some less funny, and others not funny at all.

Vive la Difference.

.

 

[RightinNYC]

OK... now it's clear. I was curious what all that venting and blather was about. The Birther crap was wholly confusing. I was trying to figure out if Giuliani had said something about it.

First off... I used the term Obi from Nairobi for fun, but I am not and have never been a Birther.
That bee has somehow stuck in your bonnet, even though I have explained it to you before.
Capiche? If not... go find my Birther threads or posts. You won't find any. Capiche?

Saying things like "Obi from Nairobi" is just a passive-aggressive way to spout Birther nonsense. If someone used "9/11CoverUpBoy" as a nickname for Bush, it would be pretty ridiculous for them to pretend that they weren't pushing truther crap.

Second... The OP was a VIDEO CLIP from realclearpolitics.com.
Go look. Look, look, look.
I posted it in its entirety. I didn't see any other news items on the subject. So I did not ignore ANYTHING. Capiche?

Posting a video w/o any context and then launching into an off-topic diatribe is a pretty terrible way to spur discussion. God forbid you take the 4 seconds to google the topic to find an article with more information, as I did.

Third, I don't give a rats ass what you think about my OP's or how I decide to start a thread. Really. I like to poke fun... and if it irritates the opposition or folks like you... tough darts mate. Am I breaking rules? I haven't heard squat from the Mod Squad... and when I have been penalized... I haven't repeated the error. (except for posting in wrong forums now and again)... If these OP's are breaking the rules... then slap the points down. Isn't that how it works?

Have I said you broke the rules? No. I'm saying that you create threads that are not conducive to mature debate.

Forth, I believe the threads I start are well visited. I could be wrong... You have the stats... why not crunch 'em.

Quantity =/= quality.

Fifth, If the opposition gets into bickering... WTF else is new? Are you going to run around and criticize their posts?

Yes, I do.

If you think people here are going to change their minds through facts... ROTFLMFAO... try again.

I think that the vast majority of people on this forum have had their views on at least one issue changed by something someone else has posted. If nobody is changing their minds as a result of the things you're posting, that's something for you to deal with.

And as a last bit. Sometimes the best thing you can do is shut down the debate fast. Sun-Tzu said the best thing is to not have to fight. If one post kills the thread... so be it... the post and poster has done its job.

Posting an OP that is so ridiculous as to ensure that most reasonable people ignore it =/= victory.

 

[Boo Radley]

Joe Sestak Disease, a rare form of Tourette Syndrome is emerging from Democrats.

It's amazing what emerges from their yaps.

I heard Obi has had Congress earmark a couple billion in research to find medication to combat this evil.
It's to be called The New Manhattan Project.

It fits here but can someone move this to Bias in the Media...

.

Just to be accurate, she also states she actually asked questions to get information. I think there may be someone misreading about the phrase working with. It sounded more like seeking information. However, Joe was right that the truth was likely in the middle.

 

[zimmer]

Saying things like "Obi from Nairobi" is just a passive-aggressive way to spout Birther nonsense. If someone used "9/11CoverUpBoy" as a nickname for Bush, it would be pretty ridiculous for them to pretend that they weren't pushing truther crap.

His roots are from Kenya. Pops was quite the stud. He has family there. Some living in huts, some living in houses.

IT WAS IN FUN. It Rhymed. Obi... from...Nairobi.
911Coverupboy doesn't. Not funny... no musical association.

Capiche?

Posting a video w/o any context and then launching into an off-topic diatribe is a pretty terrible way to spur discussion. God forbid you take the 4 seconds to google the topic to find an article with more information, as I did.

Off topic diatribe?

I first posted it in News 2.0 and then had a mod change it as I realized it might have a better fit somewhere else.
I also figured, being a vid, people would WATCH IT! ... and decide...

I said Dems were catching Joe Sestak Disease, a form of Tourett's Syndrome.
I said Obi was going to fund a program to stop it. The New Manhatten Project (to nuke it out of existence)
It was relevant. Sestak told the truth. Mika did too.
If this catches it could spell the end of the Democrat party as we know it! Hence Obi's funding of the New Manhatten Project.

It was original... not the usual claptrap...
Don't tell me that flew over your head?
It was funny.
Phew.

Have I said you broke the rules? No. I'm saying that you create threads that are not conducive to mature debate.

You implied I should change my ways.
Now you've probably done the opposite.
I don't like being treated like a spouse.

Quantity =/= quality.

You were the one that brought up the fact my OP's could be thread killing.
YOU brought up quantity.

Yes, I do.

Must have missed 'em.
But OK, I'll take your word for it.
Can I call you Mother Hen?

I think that the vast majority of people on this forum have had their views on at least one issue changed by something someone else has posted. If nobody is changing their minds as a result of the things you're posting, that's something for you to deal with.

I don't know if anyone has. I probably will never know, and that's fine with me.
I know in dealing with people one-on-one I have.

Posting an OP that is so ridiculous as to ensure that most reasonable people ignore it =/= victory.

You define responsible?
If there is something to debate, and the OP is ridiculous, doesn't that simply open up the flank for attack?
I'd say so.

The OP wasn't ridiculous, didn't eliminate anything, it merely had a little fun at the Democrats expense for revealing the truth; and this in a forum called Bias in the Media.

I still think the Joe Sestak Disease, a form of Tourette's Syndrome is funny.
Then again I haven't laughed so hard as the thread titled "What's wetter than a Spastic's Chin?" I cried I was laughing so hard... but that's me. Some might be disgusted.

Vive la Difference.

.

 

[samsmart]

The bottom line with you is, it's not a big deal when it's a Democrat defending a Democrat, but it's EXPECTED ****ty, unprofessional and biased with it's on the other political side. Got it.

Umm, no, that's not what I said at all. I said that this particular journalistic practice isn't ****ty, unprofessional, or biased. Whether a Democrat does it or a Republican does it.

And I find it so odd that you read that into what I said since you paid such particular attention to a tv journalist you only watch on the screen saying "working with White House talking points" instead of "working from White House talking points," and yet you choose to blatantly ignore segments of what a member of an online forum has posted in a thread that you are directly taking part in. Please turn off your selective comprehension of posts or start posting on Free Republic instead of here.

 

[Ockham]

Umm, no, that's not what I said at all. I said that this particular journalistic practice isn't ****ty, unprofessional, or biased. Whether a Democrat does it or a Republican does it.

Glad you clarified that.

 

[washunut]

Umm, no, that's not what I said at all. I said that this particular journalistic practice isn't ****ty, unprofessional, or biased. Whether a Democrat does it or a Republican does it.

And I find it so odd that you read that into what I said since you paid such particular attention to a tv journalist you only watch on the screen saying "working with White House talking points" instead of "working from White House talking points," and yet you choose to blatantly ignore segments of what a member of an online forum has posted in a thread that you are directly taking part in. Please turn off your selective comprehension of posts or start posting on Free Republic instead of here.

To say that it is fine for a commentator to be little more than a mini Robert Gibbs under a Mika mask seems silly. I wonder how often, while she is looking at here Blackberry she is getting cliff notes from her friends at the WH.

Reading responses on this site, the expected ethics for talking heads seems to be in the toilet.

 

[justabubba]

To say that it is fine for a commentator to be little more than a mini Robert Gibbs under a Mika mask seems silly. I wonder how often, while she is looking at here Blackberry she is getting cliff notes from her friends at the WH.

rudy julieannie had been on spouting a bunch of nonsense about what the Obama administration had NOT done - asserting the white house had NOT contacted industry professionals about the BP issue
mika tried to call bull**** at that time but could not document that he was absolutely wrong without first contacting the white house to confirm her belief that they had been in contact with knowledgable industry experts
which is exactly what she did
it's what good reporters do
and now the wingers are out in force because she has proven again julieannie to be the uunrepentant liar that he is

Reading responses on this site, the expected ethics for talking heads seems to be in the toilet.

one visit will demonstrate that ethical reporting is something unknown - on networks like faux news

 

[washunut]

rudy julieannie had been on spouting a bunch of nonsense about what the Obama administration had NOT done - asserting the white house had NOT contacted industry professionals about the BP issue
mika tried to call bull**** at that time but could not document that he was absolutely wrong without first contacting the white house to confirm her belief that they had been in contact with knowledgable industry experts
which is exactly what she did
it's what good reporters do
and now the wingers are out in force because she has proven again julieannie to be the uunrepentant liar that he is


one visit will demonstrate that ethical reporting is something unknown - on networks like faux news

She was talking to Jack Welsh not Rudy, just to get some facts straight.

On your last point, I can't listen to folks like Beck or Hannity OR Olberman and Matthews.

I guess I am getting old for the new liberalism. It used to be we would decry BS whereever it camr from. Now whatever liberals call themselves, I guess progressives think it is fine to distort because " the other side does it to". Pathetic.

 

[samsmart]

Reading responses on this site, the expected ethics for talking heads seems to be in the toilet.

Talking heads aren't paid to have ethics. They are paid to sell commercials on their shows. This is why Rush Limbaugh is where he's at today.

 

[washunut]

Talking heads aren't paid to have ethics. They are paid to sell commercials on their shows. This is why Rush Limbaugh is where he's at today.

Probably true. Then what does the audience get out of the show. Something to nod their heads at.

 

[justabubba]

She was talking to Jack Welsh not Rudy, just to get some facts straight.

the fact is she was interviewing julieannie, which is when he got the air time to make his bogus rant that the Obama white house had not contacted specialists in the filed

On your last point, I can't listen to folks like Beck or Hannity OR Olberman and Matthews.

ok
want to tell us who you do find acceptable

I guess I am getting old for the new liberalism. It used to be we would decry BS whereever it camr from. Now whatever liberals call themselves, I guess progressives think it is fine to distort because " the other side does it to". Pathetic.

it would seem you are getting too old to deal with this, i have to agree with you ... such a rare instance when i can say that

 

[samsmart]

Probably true. Then what does the audience get out of the show. Something to nod their heads at.

Pretty much.

 

[washunut]

I find it a compliment that you can't agree with me on much.

 

[Agent Ferris]

how dare she want to counter julieannie's BS with actual facts
she will never get a faux news gig that way

And by "facts" you mean white house talking points.

 

[Agent Ferris]

Well, I didn't see that particular show, so I didn't know if Guiliani was lying or not - that is what I inferred from this morning's episode.

Regardless, I don't see what's wrong with using White House talking points when interviewing other commentators.

You don't see anything wrong with supposed journalists reading from the White House script? Pravda anyone?

 

[justabubba]

And by "facts" you mean white house talking points.

and by the "facts" i mean the factual response received by mika when she solicited answers from the white house ... to be able to facually counter the lies previously cast by rudy julieannie
if you saw the prior show on which he was a participant, he accused the Obama administration of failing to speak with industry professionals in their assessment of the situation. mika proven him very wrong, based on her reporter's effort to go to the source and ask the questions. the WH insists it did contact industry experts - which proves julieannie was lying. but with him, that is typical

 

[justabubba]

You don't see anything wrong with supposed journalists reading from the White House script? Pravda anyone?

why would we see anything wrong with a reporter reporting what the white house said?
in this instance mika reported that the white house confirmed it had spoken with industry experts about the BP issue
those WH provided facts again revealed that rudy julieannie lied ... a neocon trait it seems