Category Archives: Media Criticism

Why Jon Stewart Attacked Jim Cramer

Pethokoukis explains. This really appears to be part of a government/media war on investors.

[Update a while later]

More thoughts on the matter from Mark Hemingway:

Anyone who has tuned into his show and seen Cramer strutting around a soundstage that looks like the helm of the Starship Enterprise as envisioned by the Teletubbies’ set designer and pushing buttons that make wacky sound effects could tell you that Cramer is to stock-picking what The Daily Show is to TV news: something not to be taken too seriously.

Ouch.

Plummeting Polls

Here’s good news. The president’s popularity is no longer in the stratosphere, and his policies are particularly unpopular:

When Gallup asked whether we should be spending more or less in the economic stimulus, by close to 3-to-1 margin voters said it is better to have spent less than to have spent more. When asked whether we are adding too much to the deficit or spending too little to improve the economy, by close to a 3-to-2 margin voters said that we are adding too much to the deficit.

Support for the stimulus package is dropping from narrow majority support to below that. There is no sense that the stimulus package itself will work quickly, and according to a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, close to 60% said it would make only a marginal difference in the next two to four years. Rasmussen data shows that people now actually oppose Mr. Obama’s budget, 46% to 41%. Three-quarters take this position because it will lead to too much spending. And by 2-to-1, voters reject House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s call for a second stimulus package.

Good. I hope that the Maine Mushheads and Arlen Spector end up regretting their stimulus support.

[Update a few minutes later]

Jen Rubin has a related piece over at PJM on the end of the honeymoon, but I thought that this comment really stood out in terms of incandescent asininity. And note that it doesn’t even have much to do with the topic: it’s an all-purpose turd for any punchbowl:

To all Republicans and Conservatives:

Please leave. Please just pack your stuff, your bibles, your guns, your racism, your intolerance, your greed, and your ignorance and leave. Africa is a great place for you, or perhaps South or Central America. I mean, isn’t that your dream scenario? Low taxes, all business, who cares if your surroundings are crap as long as you are getting paid?

You people must go. You live in a fantasy world devoid of any rational thought outside your own myopia. You think you “work so hard”. Most of you are completely full of **it. The only reason you haven’t lost your jobs (yet) or your home, is because thus far, you are lucky. You didn’t make any “wise” or omnipotent decisions that separate you from “all the losers who are losing their homes”. The housing market is over inflated everywhere. You didn’t, “stay within your means any more than anyone else”. You are so completely narcissistic that you think you are still safe because you are smarter, or work harder, or are somehow intrinsically better. You aren’t. You are greedy, ingnorant, and very “un-American”.

It doesn’t get any smarter after that.

[Update a couple minutes later]

Maybe this explains the fall in the polls. Frank J. says that Barack Obama is simply too awesome:

Before you grab the pitchforks and label me an apostate, hear me out. Now I am an enlightened individual who fully understands and appreciates President Obama (pbuh), but can we expect the same from other countries with non-Obama leaders? Those people have never produced a person like Obama, not to mention elected him, so it is natural for them to be scared and intimidated by someone so beyond their understanding. To them, meeting Obama must be like encountering Jesus riding a dinosaur — both reassuring and intimidating at the same time. It’s natural they’ll be confused.

Just look at the British reaction to Obama’s meeting with Gordon Brown. They seem to think their prime minister was snubbed by not getting the special reception they had become accustomed to when the troglodyte Bush was dictator. Many British reporters were also angry how Obama seemed hesitant to answer many questions. Such nonsense shows that the British are still stuck in pre-Obama thinking. Of course the unrefined Bush would make a big deal of meeting foreign leaders; to that simpleton, it must have been like being visited by advanced aliens. It would be silly for Obama, though, to act like it is an honor to meet with other countries’ non-Obama leaders, or for him to hold the pretense that speaking with them would give him knowledge he did not already possess. He is Obama; the British should not worry if Obama is listening, because he already understands their needs better than they do. As for the British press, they must learn to be more like the American press, which already knows there is no reason to question Obama. Obama is aware of what we need to know and when we need to know it, so there is no reason for the formality of questions. We simply must sit and wait for his wisdom, but the British have yet to come to that understanding. Also, it wouldn’t hurt if in the future they brought offerings of gold and silver.

It’s a trenchant analysis.

More from Jen Rubin, on Barack Obama’s liberal petri dish:

that’s apparently what the country is from Obama’s perspective – a liberal petri dish to grow the New Deal II. But the economy is not a political science lab experiment for most elected leaders and certainly not for voters who simply want things to get better. So why doesn’t the administration listen to these worried Democrats, the Republicans (who are still offering bipartisan solutions), and the “soured” punditocracy which is increasingly frustrated with the president?

This reminds me of the old joke from the Soviet Union. A teacher is instructing her students in Marxism, and one of them raises his hand and asks, “Is it true that Karl Marx was a scientist?”

“Oh, yes,” the teacher replied. “He was the greatest scientist in the history of mankind.”

“Well, then why didn’t he try this crap on rats first?”

Another Neocon Weighs In On Freeman

You know, that famous neocon Lanny Davis:

Mr. Freeman’s departing rant explaining his withdrawal, in which did not take any responsibility and obscured the facts about his own actual writings, and made dark and false charges of a conspiracy of nameless people who “libeled” him — again without a single factual example — was ironically the best evidence of all as to why, temperamentally and intellectually, he was not qualified for this particular job of objectively assessing crucial national intelligence facts.

Surely I’m not the only person to be disturbed that this man was nominated in the first place.

What Made The Difference?

I was struck by this sentence in Jen Rubin’s piece today on the end of the Obama honeymoon:

The swiftness of the criticism seems remarkable given the reverence which the media displayed toward Obama and the presidential transition which most commentators regarded as unusually smooth.

So what happened? Why was the transition so “smooth” and the actual governing been so rocky and seemingly incompetent?

Well, here’s something that all the transition swooners in the media and other places didn’t consider. What changed on January 20th? Who was in charge before that date? Blinded by the glow of their adoration, did they perhaps misattribute the source of the “smoothness”?

And what does that portend for the next almost-four years?

Twitter, Explained

As only Lileks can:

A local columnist decided to go after Twitter today. (h/t Julio, via Twitter.) Now, we all love Joe around here, and his afternoon talk show is a ratings powerhouse that stands as the last remaining local example of how you create, build, and keep a radio audience without resorting to sports. No small feat, and detractors are advised to try it themselves before pitching rocks.

Now and again, though, even the zestiest observer of the scene can slip into onions-on-the-belt territory. I’ve come to expect two kinds of Twitter stories: one written for a mass audience by someone who gets the medium, like the Strib’s Randy Salas, and one written for people who still think the Morse Telegraph ruined the lovely art of hand-written letters.

You see any sealing-wax salesman downtown lately? ‘Course not. I remember when they’d come by with their cart, and you’d pat old dobbin on the nose while discussing Teapot Dome, and ‘ventually you’d get down to whether you wanted the new-fangled smokeless sealing wax or the old bituminous variety. I didn’t like the smokeless style – time was, a man felt his letter was done when the room was full of choking fumes, and when you wiped down the walls a few times a year with a real sponge, not one of those cellulite monstrosities, you felt like you were gathering up the spirits of all the letters you’d sent. Then Tony – that’s what we called him even though he had some other name – would offer to regrind your seal so you’d get a nice imprint, and he’d do it there on the spot. Kids today with their beep-beep-beep telegrams – what can you say in a medium that’s made up of long and short, and charges by the word? As the man said about the telegraph, “What hath God wrought?” Someone said that about the nuclear bomb, too.

Read the whole thing (because it really does describe Twitter and its utility better than I’ve ever seen it). I love the way he assumes that his readership will get the onion-on-the-belt reference. Not to mention five bees to a quarter.

[Mid-morning update]

I should note that one key point he makes that I hadn’t considered is that Twitter is a digital communications channel that hasn’t (yet) become spammified beyond recognition.

Wanting Presidents To Fail

A little previously unreported history:

On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: “I certainly hope he doesn’t succeed.”

Carville was joined by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, who seemed encouraged by a survey he had just completed that revealed public misgivings about the newly minted president.

“We rush into these focus groups with these doubts that people have about him, and I’m wanting them to turn against him,” Greenberg admitted.

The pollster added with a chuckle of disbelief: “They don’t want him to fail. I mean, they think it matters if the president of the United States fails.”

But see, it’s all right to want a president to fail as long as that president is George Bush, and not The Messiah.