Birth of an online tiradeOctober 10, 2005
Yes, we get letters, as they say. And some of them are submissions. This one came in this evening from gaber (short for Gabriel? as in "sword of"?)
Seems Joe Scarborough has his own watchdog. And while gaber's post is a little old by the 21st century news clock, it marked Irregular Joe's inaugural post. Appearantly seeing Scarbourough attack even a relatively conservative Republican, Chuck Hagel (R-NE), be trashed as a terrorist-loving-troops-hater was the last straw for gaber, I-J's host. And while he's a lot more patient and understanding of Scarborough than I could be (I admit, I can't bear to watch his show), perhaps his more mellowed tones of criticism might have an impact on Joe. Or, not as the case may be. But you have to commend the guy for his fortitude. And perhaps gaber will lose patience with Joe and shout out in dignation: "Stop stop stop stop... You're hurting America". gaber's got a couple of months track record. I'll have to read through and see if he's still as patient with slow pupil Joe. To: Lane Schwark By: gaber I'm betting that what's driving me nuts is also driving quite a few other people crazy. My blog's title, "Irregular Joe", generally refers to the ills that I think are plaguing the mainstream media in this country. I can't exactly cover such a broad topic, so I've decided to limit my topic to MSNBC's show "Scarborough Country", hosted by Joe Scarborough. Why pick on Joe? Because I like Joe, and I think he's capable of seeing the other side of an argument and acknowledging its merits. That basic civility and respect for another's point of view seems to be fading from American politics and news programs. Unlike many of his contemporaries, I think Joe Scarborough has demonstrated honesty, intelligence, thoughtfulness, and intense loyalty. This loyalty at times can easily be confused as bigotry and vehement partisan bullheadedness. But I think there is a difference between Joe Scarborough and the many in his line of work that are blinded and consumed by their hatred for the opposition. If I can't keep Joe on the honest track, by deconstructing and examining the arguments expressed on his program, at least I've formulated my own opinions on the matter and perhaps gained some knowledge and insight into the issues. I've watched "Scarborough Country", regularly and intermittently for the past several years. I don't exactly see eye-to-eye with most of what Mr. Scarborough has to say. Some of what Joe says is on the mark. Some of it seems ridiculous, and a lot of it sounds like blatant partisan propaganda. But what I've come to realize is that show's like "Scarborough Country" seem to be becoming the norm on Cable news stations. I see that trend as disconcerting, and something all Americans who care about the health of our democracy should be concerned about. Joe is up-front about the fact that his show is an "opinion show", namely his opinion, and in principle I see nothing wrong with opinion shows. Where I see a problem is that this genre of red-state, blue-state, partisan showdown news programming is becoming the way we discuss issues in this country. I see it as further polarizing the political discourse in this country and debasing and harshening the tone of our debates and disagreements. It seems that the politicians, and now the media, are becoming ideologues, squeezing out the middle ground with their extreme left and right wing politics, and failing to deliver the pragmatic compromises that America needs and most Americans genuinely crave. The partisan rhetoric and propaganda is the static that is becoming deafeningly loud and threatens to drown out the voices of moderation, tolerance and diversity. The quality of our news sources and the relevance of the content coming from the mainstream media seems to be sinking lower and lower. Cable news is awash with hour upon hour of reporting and "investigating" of celebrity trials and sensationalized missing person cases. The relentless news coverage of sensationalized criminal cases is the static that is swamping out the information and rational discourse that Americans need to face the tough issues of our time. The people I interact with in my daily life, people who work regular jobs to pay their bills and raise a family, people who work towards building a brighter future for their families and communities, people who care about the future of this country and the planet, are not worried about celebrity trials. We worry about things like globalization, outsourcing, the environment, corporate and government corruption, health care, education, retirement, security, and yes crime, but not to the inordinate degree that one would conclude by turning on a cable news channel. We worry that a polarized and ideologically driven political system will squabble incessantly in dead-lock and fail to address the big issues of our time. We worry that the issues that really affect us are being drowned out by the comparatively irrelevant and meaningless static. In part I blame the media for it's poor stewardship and dereliction of the vital duty to keep the electorate informed and be a vigilant government and corporate watchdog. Programs like "Scarborough Country" are a symptom of the problem, not the cause. I'm not blaming Joe Scarborough for all the failings and imperfections of the media and the American political system. I don't intend to single out Joe and bash him for his opinions. If Joe's opinions are well reasoned and thought out, even if I disagree with them, I'll respect that and formulate my reasons why I agree or disagree. I also intend to track the content of Scarborough Country as an example of the disproportionate amount of journalistic and media resources spent on a few isolated criminal and celebrity cases. I intend to point out the shameful partisan rhetoric when I see it. The ideologues that blindly follow the party line, while incessantly berating and smearing anyone in opposition are turning the political discourse in this country toxic. My goal is to point out the hypocricy of blind partisanship and to call it the venom that it is. It's the poison that is doing this country no good and Americans should not tolerate the demagoguery and smearing that permeates politics. Joe Scarborough espouses common sense, and I intend to hold him to that. I'll conclude my inaugural post with the root-cause of my decision to start a blog on this topic. Today I emailed Scarborough Country to express my displeasure at attacks that Joe and a guest leveled against Senator Chuck Hagel for an appearance that he made on Sunday, Aug. 21st, 2005 where he expressed concern about the Bush administration's policies in Iraq. I just got fed-up of watching partisan ideologues smear people with opposing views rather than having an honest discourse and debate of the issues. The kind of poisonous assault on Senator Hagel for his remarks is precisely the kind of partisan rhetoric that is dishonest, toxic and hurts the political discourse. It seemed that Joe Scarborough was particularly upset that Senator Hagel, a republican, would dare express a view that does not favor the Bush administration. For Monday, Aug. 22nd, 2005, Joe Scarborough certainly towed the party line. Joe, your lack of tollerance for decenting opinions within your own party is making you look like a partisan ideologue. But tomorrow's another day. Maybe you can tone down the rhetoric and address the issues. The transcript of Joe's shameful remarks can be found here (or check msnbc.com). Scarborough Country, 8/24/05 [I've included the relevant transcript for gaber. You needn't read it, just skim and feel the steaming ooze coming off it. - DrL]
Now, friends, let me tell you, obviously, right now, we have some late-breaking developments in Iraq. They are moving toward approving a constitution, finalized a draft that‘s going to be voted on within the next three days. But the president is not focusing on that right now. The administration is not focusing on it. They have got to be focusing on what Republican senator—that‘s right—Republican Senator Chuck Hagel said about Iraq yesterday, when he said it was turning into another Vietnam and it was time to bring our troops home. Here‘s Senator Hagel in his own words. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, “THIS WEEK”) SEN. CHUCK HAGEL (R, NEBRASKA): Now we are locked into a bogged-down problem, not unsimilar, dissimilar to where we were in Vietnam. The longer we stay, the more problems we‘re going to have. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCARBOROUGH: Here to respond to that shocking turn of events on Capitol Hill is Republican strategist Jack Burkman. Jack, I‘ll tell you what. When you have Republican senators starting to compare Iraq to Vietnam, especially a guy like Hagel, I believe, who served in Vietnam, that‘s nothing but bad news for the president, is it? JACK BURKMAN, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Joe, I will tell you, it‘s bad news for the president. But now Chuck Hagel really boils my blood. To compare Iraq to Vietnam, first of all, it‘s absurd and he knows it‘s absurd. His... (CROSSTALK) SCARBOROUGH: Wait a second, now. Ted Kennedy—Ted Kennedy has also compared it to Vietnam. So, you got Ted Kennedy and Chuck Hagel. I‘m sorry. I couldn‘t do that with a straight face. (CROSSTALK) SCARBOROUGH: What‘s going through Chuck Hagel‘s mind here? He sounds like Ted Kennedy. (CROSSTALK) BURKMAN: It shows you the company into which Senator Hagel has fallen and found himself now on the intellectual level at which he is at. I will tell you, first of all, 51,000 dead in Vietnam, a completely different war, probably four times the cost if you look at the GDP now and then, totally different conflicts. (CROSSTALK) SCARBOROUGH: Jack, what is Chuck Hagel up to? Why is he doing this? He‘s got to know, he‘s got to know that, when he says that about Iraq, what our men and women are doing over in Iraq, and everyone I talk to tells me that they‘re proud of what they‘re doing, that they‘re on their way to making this a success, that it‘s going to be a success in two years. BURKMAN: Yes. SCARBOROUGH: And yet, Hagel steps forward, compares it to Iraq. Let me ask you, Jack, who is Hagel helping when he calls this another Vietnam? Who is he helping here? BURKMAN: He‘s helping the insurgents. What he‘s doing is selling out our troops, undercutting their morale undercutting the war and undercutting the president. For what? For airtime. He... (CROSSTALK) SCARBOROUGH: That‘s a strong charge, Jack. How can you say that he‘s helping the insurgents? (CROSSTALK) BURKMAN: Joe, he‘s made a career of this. He‘s made a whole career of this. His political ideology is to be above the fold in “The New York Times”, and he will sell out—I knew he would sell out the president. That doesn‘t shock me. But when you start selling out our fighting men and women in Iraq for the purpose of getting yourself 15 minutes on ABC News, who—you know, Stephanopoulos is sitting over there. SCARBOROUGH: So, wait a second. Are you saying, Jack, that he‘s so cynical that he would, in your own words, sell out U.S. troops simply so he could play this down-the-middle moderate that would get good play in “The New York Times”? BURKMAN: Oh, without question, without question. If anything, that‘s an understatement. I think he would sell out that and more. SCARBOROUGH: Is he running for president? BURKMAN: I think he is. I certainly will work to defeat him. I know most conservatives will work to defeat him. I don‘t think he will have any—you know, there is this sense out there, Joe, that just because somebody is a Vietnam veteran, he thinks that he can distort the truth and distort facts and make any comparison he wants. He can‘t. He can‘t do that. SCARBOROUGH: Well, Jack Burkman, let me tell you something. Even though this is an opinion show, from time to time, I try to stay above the fray. But I‘m with you. If this guy runs for president of the United States and I have not written a check to a national candidate since I have had my TV show. I don‘t think it‘s right. But I‘m telling you right now, if Chuck Hagel or anybody that says anything that undercuts our troops as much as he did yesterday runs for president of the United States, I will do everything I can to try to defeat him. I would vote for Hillary Clinton before I voted for Chuck Hagel, because you know what? Hillary Clinton has never compared Iraq to Vietnam. He‘s a disgrace. And he needs to go back home, because we don‘t need his type in Washington, D.C. Jack, do you have any final words to say? Because I have got—I feel a lot better. BURKMAN: Joe, I do as well. I‘m just shocked and... (CROSSTALK) SCARBOROUGH: It was a rhetorical question, Jack, a rhetorical question. (CROSSTALK) SCARBOROUGH: I‘m telling you, I‘m angry. I‘m—you know what? I‘m going to have to go. I‘m going to go hose myself down and come back for the next segment. Jack Burkman, thanks a lot for being with us. BURKMAN: Thank you, Joe, so much. SCARBOROUGH: But, seriously, friends, I have got to tell you this. Seriously, friends, when somebody goes on the air like Chuck Hagel—I‘m telling you this—I‘m telling you, this is exactly why he did it. He went on the air because he wanted to gain favor with the editorial page of “The New York Times.” He went on the air like that yesterday because he wanted to gain favor with other moderates. He wanted to be above the fray. Listen, you above be the fray on domestic issues if you want to. But when you leave our troops out to dry, like Senator Hagel left our troops out to dry yesterday, that is shameful and he needs to step back from that comment, because he‘s dead wrong. my email to MSNBC:
|
