I missed all the TV coverage of the inauguration and protests. But I sure am glad I got to see this -- one of the great moments in journalism. I hope the guy's bandwidth holds out. For those of you familiar with the "fair and balanced" approach of the Fox News Network, it's must-see TV. (Via Basie.)
| Posted at 3:10 AM | Permalink |
|
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Tell it like it is:
» http://www.strangechord.com/mtarchives/2005_01.html#000753 from Strangechord
Woohoo! This is EXCELLENT! Because I never watch Fox News, I'm still (naively) surprised to see that its anchors/"journalists" are this biased when interviewing commentators. (thanks, Jack!)... [Read More]
Comments (6)
Hee hee. That was awesome. Guess you can't always assume those Vanity Fair editors are going to behave.
Posted by Linda | January 21, 2005 5:52 AM
Lame behavior on both sides.
The guest wasn't invited to talk about whatever she wanted, despite her claim. She was briefed on the chat topic and it obviously wasn't "let's have a testy, unexpected debate on the appropriateness of spendy parties during war". According to comments on the video's site, this interview was segued ("We'll take a look at the grand Presidential party plans...") so a viewer would expect some fluff talk about who's attending the parties, gowns, blah, blah, blah. Just like all the other ridiculous inaguration coverage.
Instead the guest tries to make a puffball interview into "Crossfire". The guest had valid points but she was a cur. If one is offered compensation to be a dancing monkey and one accepts that offer, then that monkey should dance. She wasn't invited to fling monkey doo.
The apologist host shilling for W wasn't better.
This was as good a moment in journalism as any "Crossfire" show's annoying agitprop and grandstanding. Except for the Jon Stewart episode. That was enjoyable.
Posted by Anahit | January 21, 2005 10:40 AM
His bandwidth ran out (11:32a). And, isn't it, "Tell it as it is?"
Posted by Bill B. | January 21, 2005 11:33 AM
It's running fine for me now.
Posted by Jack Bog | January 21, 2005 12:04 PM
If she's invited to talk about the inauguration, she can talk about it. The anchor pressed her on the stuff like, "How would YOU have done it, then?"
If you produce fluff and you expect people to produce fluff, then you deserve whatever you get. Fox News isn't pissed off because she's being inappropriate; Fox News is pissed off because she's right, and she's making points that are so obvious that they are Emperor-Has-No-Clothes-style embarrassments. The spending on this inaugural is indeed obscene; there's no way around it, and to talk about the inaugural and put that aside isn't polite; it's ridiculous.
Posted by Linda | January 21, 2005 1:20 PM
Gag. They were both awful. Gotta say that the Vanity Fair woman came off as immature and spiteful, which I suppose was fair and balanced to the Fox reporter's deer in the headlights lack of preparedness for a hostile interview.
Posted by dopplerateportland | January 22, 2005 6:55 PM