After watching nearly a decade where the talking heads that dominated our news were people like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter, along came the liberal answer. Rachel Maddow and Keith Obermann represent formidable answers to the neocon talking points. And their ratings have consistengly increased relative to the Fox News propagandists. Now admittedly, you could argue that Maddow and Olbermann are mere propagandists. However, I find it interesting that both welcome conservative viewpoints. Rachel Maddow's relationship with Pat Buchanon is particularly interesting. But you have to admit, openning up your dialogue to the man who talked openly about the cultural war our nation faced is quite compelling.
Admittedly, I like both of them, but maybe it is because they reinforce things I have been thinking for years. But Maddow in particular seems especially formidable. The "bull shit detection kit" advocated by the venerable Carl Sagan seems to be firmly within her arsenal. And though she uses satire and a touch of sarcasm to make her point, the point is well-spoken and hard to argue with.
There was a day in this country, when liberal voices were muted and isolated. That day is past. The Comedy Central team of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, added to the formidable two-some of Olbermann and Maddow on MSNBC makes a liberal viewpoint available to the general public. And if their viewpoints are questionable, go ahead and question. They seem open to the challenge. Do you really think Hannity's and Limbaugh's screeners will allow a liberal viewpoint past them?
I think not.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I don't get MSNBC, FNC, CNN or ESPN for that matter. I don't see O'Reilly, Olberman or any of these people. I don't read right wing blogs or left wing blogs. I don't listen to Rush, Franken, or any of the radio people, although I have caught them from time to time in the past. Generally I read the WSJ and NYT, listen to NPR and watch The News Hour on PBS.
I do love CSPAN and watched a great speech by Robert Bork yesterday. His speech was entirely about judicial restraint and how the courts have turned into an oligarchy of superlegislators rather than judging the law as it is written by elected officials. He was particularly critical of those whose opinions about what the court should be doing base their judgments on desired outcomes rather than process. It's not that outcomes don't matter, it's that that should be argued and decided in the Legislative Branch and the Executive Branch. That's what elections are for. The Judiciary should be about process and even application of the law as it was written by elected Branches.
How you think this guy is unfit for the Supreme Court is beyond me.
Kneedeep, are you living in a cave? Sorry I couldn't resist. I make it a point to listen to Hannity, O'Reilly as well as liberal talking heads such a Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann.
Maddow it seems to me came out of nowhere to be a very articulate advocate for a more liberal viewpoint.
When you consider where we were just few years ago, with a neocon propaganda machine that dominated our Republic, it is nice to see some balance.
I sense you have a deep respect for "strict constructionism". However, what I have found is that conservatives are less interested in adherence to the constitution than in outcomes. "Judicial activism" is usually nothing more than "I disagree with this decision." Bork interprets opinions he disagrees with with "judicial activism."
Post a Comment