The greatest trick David Broder ever pulled was convincing the world he was dead

Metrosexual black Abe Lincoln (in a good TNR interview — via):

In fact, that’s one of the biggest problems we’ve got in how folks report about Washington right now, because I think journalists rightly value the appearance of impartiality and objectivity. And so the default position for reporting is to say, “A plague on both their houses.” On almost every issue, it’s, “Well, Democrats and Republicans can’t agree”—as opposed to looking at why is it that they can’t agree.

We get the expected response from establishment media types:

One of the main reasons that I no longer read any establishment political commentary (with the sometime exception of Ron Brownstein and NBC’s “First Read”) is that I know they’ll just say both-sides-do-it over and over again. What’s the point in listening to that?

194 replies
  1. 1
    Hunter Gathers says:

    Poor babies. Better get an ‘exclusive’ interview with John McCain, Marco Rubio or Paul Ryan lined up. Those three are a guaranteed cure for hurt fee-fee’s.

  2. 2
    Valdivia says:

    This is reason #1 why the Village hates Obama. They can’t stand that he has their number and calls them out on it. While I tend to think of Tapper as king idiot of this type of thing, I see that Chuck Todd is now having lunch with election thief in chief in Ohio and agreeing with him about ‘redistricting reform’, ie steal the next election.

    Assholes all of them.

  3. 3
    Politically Lost says:

    Until there is an actual penalty for believing, repeating, and projecting such drivel, I expect “false, false equivalency” to be the media motto in response to reality for the foreseeable future.

  4. 4
    Baud says:

    And the toughest nut of all: false false false equivalency. .

  5. 5
    Violet says:

    @Valdivia: Yep. Obama sees right through them. No wonder they hate him.

    They are parasites on our body politic. We need to rid ourselves of them before they kill the host.

  6. 6
    Ben Franklin says:

    @Baud:

    Beat me to it :)

  7. 7
    Ben Franklin says:

    @Baud:

    Beat me to it :)

  8. 8
    General Stuck says:

    It’s show biz, and therefore must entertain. And most people like watching the gladiator fights, but won’t admit it. Watched MTP this morn, or at least the panel. It was like a bunch of politically correct dillitantes gathered to discuss politics on Mars. With Jim Demint the only one that was fluent in Martian . The others were mostly establishment pseudo libs, scared shit less that Lord Wingnut would accuse them of liberal bias.

    So he went on a diatribe about the superior economies of the deep south and other right to work, freedom shit. Comparing the shining example of SC as paradise for those unfortunate denizens niggers of inner city Detroit/

    And not one of the well scrubbed pro lefters said a word about blue states funding southern welfare states. not one.

  9. 9
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    Broderism has only metastasized since the original tumor was removed. In Tapper’s own home shop, Ann Coulter was in the last few years brought on the once respectable (on its own terms) This Week, presumably to “balance out” Paul Krugman or noted bomb-thrower Katrina Van den Heuvel.

  10. 10
    Mark S. says:

    False false equivalency is a thing, sure, but so is d/dx e^x(false)/2 equivalency.

  11. 11
    Mike Dixon says:

    I didn’t read the whole interview, but Tapper seems majorly defensive when the President of the United States of America merely said that False equivalency is indeed a thing.
    I’m not on twitter, but if I was, i’d say “@Jaketapper Why the ‘tude dude?”.
    On the other hand, this is the reporter who bravely speculated that a 49 year old man might be smoking cigarettes.

  12. 12
    ruemara says:

    @General Stuck: They save their fire for those who are insufficiently pure on their side.

  13. 13
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @Hunter Gathers: Poor babies. Better get an ‘exclusive’ interview with John McCain, Marco Rubio or Paul Ryan lined up.

    David Gregory signed an exclusive right to gaze in wonder at Paul Ryan’s big blue eyes and phony numbers just today, or so I saw on MSNBC this week.

  14. 14
    Kay says:

    @Valdivia:

    ‘redistricting reform’

    “Reform” as a word is destroyed. It has no meaning, now. It means whatever media and conservatives say it means. I cringe when I see it now. Blatantly dishonest, to twist that word to cover every situation.

  15. 15
    Mandalay says:

    @Doug Galt

    Metrosexual black Abe Lincoln

    Your posts would improve if you would stop going out of your way to label President Obama as “black” and Nate Silver as “gay”.

    Maybe you are dropping some clever insider witticisms within a game of 11-dimensional chess, but it does not come across well.

  16. 16
    General Stuck says:

    @ruemara: yes

  17. 17
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @Kay: Yup, I’m sure anyone who tried a drinking game as Paul Ryan blathered without pushback about “reforming” MedicareMedicaidandSocialSecurity is lying on the floor heaving as the ghost of Amy Winehouse sings “Rehab” in the blurry midday light.

  18. 18
    Kristin says:

    @Mike Dixon: It threatens his livelihood. He doesn’t like that.

  19. 19
    mistermix says:

    “+infinity”

    Still more evidence that Twitter is 3rd grade at 140 characters a pop.

  20. 20
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    Get a tumbrel, stat, for the vile slime that is Jake Tapper.

  21. 21
    BGinCHI says:

    Double false equivalency is the new Double Secret Probation.

    Jake Tapper as Dean Wurmer.

    Dicks.

  22. 22
    Argon says:

    I’ve come to the conclusion that Twitter is perhaps the most masturbatory forum for political commenting yet created.

  23. 23
    Argon says:

    I’ve come to the conclusion that Twitter is perhaps the most masturbatory forum for political commenting yet created.

  24. 24
    Doug Galt says:

    @Villago Delenda Est:

    I generally like him, at least relative to his competition.

  25. 25
    Violet says:

    @Mandalay: A GOP SuperPAC came up with the “metrosexual, black Abe Lincoln” description.

  26. 26
    Kay says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist:

    It’s such a bland focus-group tested word to cover such huge changes. Deliberately dishonest. Who doesn’t like “reform”! We’re ALL in favor of “reform!”

    In grade school they use to tell us when we arguing and getting ready to hit each other to “use your words!” They’re journalists. They’re in the word business. Is there some reason they have to parrot these marketing terms? “Use your words!” Skip the lazy “reform” this or that and say what the thing is.

  27. 27
    gogol's wife says:

    @mistermix:

    Yes, I haven’t heard “+ infinity” since 1962.

  28. 28
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Doug Galt:

    His head would look MUCH better on a pike than on his shoulders.

    I loathe the vermin of the Village, almost without exception.

  29. 29
    Amir Khalid says:

    @Mandalay:
    I think that among us here, it’s understood whom Doug Galt is really mocking with that epithet.

  30. 30
    scav says:

    Perhaps they are yearning to be reassured that they are deeply, authentically and truely false and not mere cheap ersatz false?

  31. 31
    Mandalay says:

    @Violet:

    A GOP SuperPAC came up with the “metrosexual, black Abe Lincoln” description.

    So what?

  32. 32
    wenchacha says:

    This AM on Fox roundtable with Brit and Chris Wallace, Juan Williams actually argued that Obama’s “recess appointments” have been the only way to fill any needed positions when Republicans simply refuse to appoint anyone he names, period. He asked what remedy there is if one (minority) side effectively conspires to disrupt attempts to have a working government. Conspires! from Juan!

  33. 33
    Mark S. says:

    Tapper’s tweet was totally rad.

  34. 34
    Violet says:

    @Doug Galt: Did you miss Jake Tapper’s holier-than-thou question to the President after the Sandy Hook shootings where he said, “Where have you been?” on gun violence. I wanted to reach through the screen and slap the smug right out of him. What an asshole.

  35. 35
    SatanicPanic says:

    I don’t get what false false equivalency means. Too meta for me.

  36. 36
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @wenchacha:

    It’s Won’s jerb to be mildly contrary at Faux. He’s just fulfilling his role by pointing out reality to total fucktheads Britt and Chris.

  37. 37
    Alison says:

    @Mandalay: So it;s a joke, mocking people who actually think that way. It’s like when people here call Obama a Kenyan soshulist or whatever. It’s not because we actually believe it, FFS…

  38. 38
    max says:

    One of the main reasons that I no longer read any establishment political commentary (with the sometime exception of Ron Brownstein and NBC’s “First Read”) is that I know they’ll just say both-sides-do-it over and over again.

    I just pick and choose to be sure I know what the idiots are on about this week. Since it’s all variations of saying the same thing that the well-off want them to say, you only have to read one to have effectively read dozens.

    TNR:

    He bemoaned his own difficulty accessing newspapers and magazines on his ultra-secure presidential iPad, which doesn’t allow him to enter required subscriber information.

    His IT people ought to be able to set up a burn tablet (or several burn tablets or burn laptop) for him (and the veep). In particular, they ought to be able to set up a burnable network for him (wired or wireless). The physical white house is supposed to be secure against transmission, so that, along with the fact that in theory someone might try and copy information to/from the burn network to the secure network is probably why they don’t do this. In practice they should be able to physically alter laptops/tablets to disable dangerous elements (webcams, microphones, extra USB connectors et al), and they should be able to limit it to people with effectively untouchable clearances (the Prez and the veep). (You can, and probably should, take a big piece of red electrical tape and slap it on whatever unit is insecure and write ‘burn unit’ across it in black marker.)

    The burn network would be normally secured, which should still allow in/out logging, which should be sufficient to catch any issues. Given that there are people trying to get in all the time anyways, this could serve a double purpose as a honeypot. Meantime, you send an administrative assistant out into the world to setup bogo accounts to read newspapers and what have you.

    They should be able to do this, I would think they would already have done this, and they should do this because it’s necessary. There is nothing like being able to see for yourself to check your incoming intelligence. (Bureaucratic control and editing of information passed to decision makers is one of the ways the permanent bureaucracy tries to restrict decision making, and this tendency has a long history of landing decision makers in hot water, particular with regards to foreign policy.)

    max
    [‘Someone should fix that, ASAP.’]

  39. 39
    Red Right Hand says:

    “The greatest trick David Broder ever pulled was convincing the world he was dead”

    Greatest title since the “Just show us on the doll where the invisible hand touched you” tag.

  40. 40
    Doug Galt says:

    @Violet:

    Holier than thou, but I don’t think it’s a crazy question. Dems have been MIA on gun violence.

    I don’t blame them, the politics of it are bad for gun safety advocates, but I don’t blame him for criticizing.

  41. 41
    karl says:

    “What’s the point in listening to that?”

    Because it makes you feel good about yourself.

  42. 42
    Citizen_X says:

    Kirk: He always uses false equivalency.

    Mudd: Now listen carefully: This is false false equivalency.

    And then the androids blew up.

  43. 43
    Violet says:

    @Mandalay: DougJ’s use of it is mocking the SuperPAC and other Republicans and self-professed conservatives. I think it needs its own Lexicon entry.

  44. 44
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @SatanicPanic: in a nutshell, Democrats can’t complain about Republican obstructionism because they blocked Robert Bork twenty-five years ago. And Rachel Maddow and Sean Hannity are mirror images of one another.

  45. 45
    handy says:

    @wenchacha:

    “Mr. Williams, Mr. Ailes is on line 2. He says it’s very urgent.”

  46. 46
    Yutsano says:

    Words. I no haz them.

    Waitaminute…

    FUCK. YOU. JAKE. TAPPER. YOU. BITTER. FUCKSTAIN.

    There. Now I feel better.

  47. 47
    Violet says:

    @Doug Galt: I blame him for criticizing. The job of the press is not to criticize. The job of the press is to ask questions. Ask away–“Why has this not been a priority until now?” etc., but the holier-than-thou style was All About Increasing Jake Tapper’s Profile.

  48. 48
    Ben Franklin says:

    @Yutsano:

    Your comments are funny…

  49. 49
    Jewish Steel says:

    Sure, the MSM media is worthless. But it’s also worthless.

    Doug, I saw you chatting w/Tapper via Twitter last week. Were you trying to bait him into saying something?

  50. 50
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Violet:

    but the holier-than-thou style was All About Increasing Jake Tapper’s Profile.

    Which is why if I had my way, Jake Tapper’s profile would be reduced to lower than whale shit at the bottom of the Marianas Trench.

  51. 51
    Mandalay says:

    @Alison:

    So it;s a joke, mocking people who actually think that way

    Riiiiight – it’s a “joke”. And calling Nate Silver a “gay wizard” is a “joke”. HaHaHa! How very funny. How clever to mock those we respect as an inside joke.

  52. 52
    Alison says:

    @Mandalay: Dude. IT;S NOT MOCKING THEM. No one here is mocking Nate Silver for being gay or Obama for being black. We’re mocking homophobes and racists for thinking those things are worthy of mockery. Are you that dense?

  53. 53
    Violet says:

    And since we’re talking about Jake Tapper, let’s not forget the time DougJ heard him on Laura Ingraham’s radio show, posted about it, and then Jake Tapper paid Balloon-Juice a visit in the comments:

    Original post: http://www.balloon-juice.com/2.....ociopaths/

    Second post with audio from radio show: http://www.balloon-juice.com/2.....per-audio/

  54. 54
    redshirt says:

    Ah, Purity Patrol. NO ONE LAUGH!

    Also, I call dibs on True Equivalency. Jake Tapper = David Gregory = Chuck Todd = All the rest of them. All equally worthless.

  55. 55
    WarMunchkin says:

    The irony is that POTUS does his fair share of hippie punch in that interview anyway.

  56. 56
    Tonal Crow says:

    @Kay:

    “Reform” as a word is destroyed. It has no meaning, now. It means whatever media and conservatives say it means. I cringe when I see it now. Blatantly dishonest, to twist that word to cover every situation.

    Ya. “Reform” has become a synonym for “modify”, as opposed to “improve”.

  57. 57
    kc says:

    Jake Tapper is the quintessential douchebag.

  58. 58
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Alison:

    Are you that dense?

    All the signs point to “yes”.

  59. 59
    Cacti says:

    Remember, in Tapper’s world Faux News is a “sister network”.

  60. 60
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @Violet: but the holier-than-thou style was All About Increasing Jake Tapper’s Profile.

    That I disagree with, I think his poutrage was as genuine as it was totally unprofessional. The reason I despise Tapper is his smug, self-satisfied Savviness is off the charts*, and for someone who so clearly prides himself on being smarter than us rubes of blogistan to give in to that kind of cult-of-the-presidency whining, and to do it with such petulant self-righteousness, was what made me want to go up one side of his head and down the other. And as Rachel Maddow pointed out around the same time, Obama has actually talked quite a bit about gun safety in the last two years.

    *though in fairness, that chart has to be recalibrated since Luke Russert was given a job.

  61. 61
    Tonal Crow says:

    Republicans are trying their hardest, but their propaganda isn’t as effective as it once was. I suspect that many more people understand the concept of ‘false equivalency’ than the concept of ‘false “false equivalency”‘. Those double negatives are just difficult to parse.

  62. 62
    Jewish Steel says:

    @Jewish Steel: Ah, I see now that you find him more palatable. I don’t know, he seems an awful tuft-hunter to me.

  63. 63
    Yutsano says:

    @Cacti:

    Remember, in Tapper’s world Faux News is a “sister network” the employer he aspires to.

    Adjusted that fer ya.

  64. 64
    Peregrinus says:

    @Tonal Crow:

    Especially in the area of education. Everything just needs MOAR REFORM.

  65. 65
    Joel says:

    Of course you can expect Jake Tapper to protest. I mean, he’s the one getting slapped here.

  66. 66
    Kay says:

    This is still my favorite Obama-Tapper interaction:

    During Tuesday night’s Press Conference, President Obama teased a member of the press corps who tried to follow up on a colleague’s unanswered question. Obama asked Jake Tapper of ABC News: “Are you the ombudsman for the White House press corps?”

    Was that ever answered?

  67. 67
    JoyfulA says:

    @Politically Lost: Tweet them to ask for an example of “false ‘false equivalency.'” I just did. They’re not making any sense.

  68. 68
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Kay:

    Would it be sweet if Obama didn’t pronounce “corps” as “core”, but instead, as “corpse”?

  69. 69
    Redshift says:

    The ultimate in recent false equivalency was the WaPo editorial board on the Virginia Senate’s attempt at off-cycle gerrymandering:

    Shame on the witless Democrats for not anticipating that Republicans, given the chance, would resort to dirty tricks. And shame on Republicans for continuing their campaign to transform the General Assembly into a nasty, underhanded clone of Congress.

  70. 70
    Ben Franklin says:

    Best comment goes to Chuck Butcher, to whom Tapper did not respond, I assume because he had no good answer.

    116Chuck Butcher Says:

    @Jake Tapper:
    specifically what you’re upset about
    I won’t speak for geg6, though we’re familiar with each other.
    I will say this, I think in this instance you tried to do the right thing and especially by coming here. That doesn’t touch what pisses me off and a lot of people around here.
    You have and your compatriots are often more guilty of using false equivalence by reporting “he said/she said” without context or fact checking and that makes statements equal. Taken to its ludicrous end, X says the moon is green cheese and Y says its rock. /end
    WTF are people supposed to make of this? How in the hell is the public supposed to sort issues out? We all know politicians say things to benefit their political ends, there is supposed to be somebody standing between “us” and “them” – YOU GUYS.
    I’m a fierce partisan but I’ll kick my own side when they lie or roll over for liars. I make no pretence to be a jouralist, in fact I have to count on you guys and you “going away” would be a huge blow – but not so much with this horse race/false equivalancy reporting. If you’re going to deny doing this – you need to go read your own reports. That’s sad because you actually show some promise at being real good at your job.

    March 25th, 2010 at 4:49 pm

  71. 71
    Violet says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: The WH press corps all want to be the one to ask the question that delivers the soundbite that gets the attention. If the reporters are part of the soundbite, so much the better for them–increases their profile, improves their chances at a better job or higher salary.

    That sort of thinking is so ingrained that it is part of every question they ask the president. I don’t disagree that he might also have felt actual poutrage, but Tapper’s primary motivation is to somehow be part of the story. He got what he wanted.

  72. 72
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Redshift:

    Reason number 2,529,634 why Fred Hiatt needs to be slow roasted over a bed of hot coals.

  73. 73
    Mandalay says:

    @Alison:

    We’re mocking homophobes and racists for thinking those things are worthy of mockery.

    Fine, but there is a larger issue at stake. If race or sexuality is not relevant, don’t bring it up. We don’t ever talk about “gay Glenn Greenwald” or “black Eddie Murphy” because it has no relevance, so why do it for Obama and Silver?

    Now I guess you would argue that it is “clearly a joke so it’s OK” but I don’t agree. The defense you are invoking is identical to that advance by sexists, racists, xenophobes and homophobes on the right: “Wassa matter? Can’t you take a joke? We’re just kidding!”.

    Are you that dense?

    No, I fully understand the argument you are making, and I did before you made it. I just think it is a very weak argument, and that approach means that you are lowering yourself to their level rather than mocking them. Rise above it.

  74. 74
    Bobby Thomson says:

    @Alison: yes. Yes he is. SATSQ. DFTT.

  75. 75
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @Villago Delenda Est: I don’t know the man, and he’s certainly written some extraordinary dickitude under his own by-line, but I have a vague sense that Fred Hiatt is to Chuck Lane what Dumbya was to Cheney.

  76. 76
    Violet says:

    @Mandalay:

    We don’t ever talk about “gay Glenn Greenwald” or “black Eddie Murphy” because it has no relevance, so why do it for Obama and Silver?

    People aren’t saying “gay Nate Silver” or “black Barack Obama”. Equivalence fail.

  77. 77
    Tonal Crow says:

    @Politically Lost:

    Until there is an actual penalty for believing, repeating, and projecting such drivel, I expect “false, false equivalency” to be the media motto in response to reality for the foreseeable future.

    Na. It’s a double negative, and thus difficult to understand. I think it will join many other crazy-con inside-baseball terms, such as “Solyndra!” and “Benghazi!”

    That said, and while Republicans’ propaganda recently has become less effective, we need to be alert for the next barrage. Also too, we need to be tugging the Overton Window ourselves. Obama did a nice job of that in his inauguration speech, as on gay rights and climate change. How ’bout some climate posts here?

  78. 78
    SatanicPanic says:

    @Violet: Equivalence fail is a thing, sure.

  79. 79
    Kay says:

    @Villago Delenda Est:

    I don’t even think it’s politically smart to go after them, because then we enter this ridiculous defensive cycle, where they all rally to defend one another, and they all decide it’s Obama’s fault, again. I could plot it on a graph. Statement, defensive reaction, Obama’s fault.
    I actually think it’s an area where Obama lacks discipline, which is rare. He is never, ever going to win this game because they make the rules and they get most of the time in front of a camera.

  80. 80
    Violet says:

    @SatanicPanic: Would be a good band name.

  81. 81
    Peter says:

    @Mandalay:

    For the last fucking time, the joke is not on Obama and Nate Silver. Christ, if there’s two people BJ as a whole have respect for, it’s those two.

    Particularly in the case of Black Metropolitan Abe Lincoln, it’s about taking a designation intended as derogatory and owning it as a positive. It might be ‘the same defense’ as used for people emailing photos of Obama with a bone through his nose on a very superficial level but it actually isn’t. At all. The two aren’t even comparable.

  82. 82
    Forum Transmitted Disease says:

    The question to be asked is this: whose ends does the quest for correct thought and expression serve?

  83. 83
    Suffern ACE says:

    Could someone even explain what false, false equivalency is? In terms of the msm terms is it that mtp and this week are the same when one is beige and the other is desert sand?

  84. 84
    Violet says:

    @Tonal Crow:

    How ’bout some climate posts here?

    Didn’t John give the keys to someone who knows about climate change? Or am I misremembering?

  85. 85
    ruemara says:

    @Alison: All signs point to yes.

  86. 86
    Valdivia says:

    following on the holier than though attitude by Tapper: what bothers me is that he asked the President ‘where have you been’ (on gun control) and yet Tapper (and his brethren) have spent 4 years feeding the paranoia of people who think Obama is going to take away their guns. They repeat every single insane talking point about Obama overreaching etc etc without any compunction and then when something bad actually happens they had nothing to do with it, they are innocent little lambs or worse righteous fighters who speak truth to power, obviously only in their own derelict minds.

  87. 87
    SatanicPanic says:

    @Violet: Totally sounds like one of those rap/metal bands the kids like.

  88. 88
    dr. bloor says:

    @Mandalay: Um…you’re still a little unclear on the concept. Or, heaven forbid, intentionally obtuse.

  89. 89
    Ben Franklin says:

    @Suffern ACE:

    A double-negative equals a positive; ergo equivalent.

  90. 90
    Alison says:

    @Mandalay:

    We don’t ever talk about “gay Glenn Greenwald” or “black Eddie Murphy” because it has no relevance, so why do it for Obama and Silver?

    Because, as far as I have seen, none of their detractors have made a point of using those traits as reasons to detract. I’ve never seen anyone say that GG should shut up and stop writing about civil liberties and OBAMA SUX!!! because he’s just a silly queer so who cares. It wouldn’t make any sense to do a tongue-in-cheek version of mockery that no one is actually using in earnest.

    The defense is you are invoking is identical to that advance by sexists, racists, xenophobes and homophobes on the right: “Wassa matter? Can’t you take a joke? We’re just kidding!”.

    No. These two situations are not identical. The sexists, racists, et al are saying things they ACTUALLY BELIEVE and are being GENUINELY nasty and hateful and bigoted, and then try to claim it’s a joke to get out of being criticized for being sexist, racist, etc. When some GOPer asshole sent around that email with watermelons on the White House lawn and then was all IT’S JUST A JOKE COME ON, we knew that was bullshit, we knew that dude was really being racist and knew he was being racist and was fine with it. Their jokes have as the butt of them the victims of bigotry. Our jokes have the *bigots* as the target. It’s different.

    And I don’t think I am “lowering” myself to the level of a racist, homophobe, etc by pointing out how disgusting and ridiculous they are. For me, mocking the caveman attitudes they have is a form of standing up for myself against it, and you don’t get to tell me how to counteract bigotry, especially that which would include me in its sights.

  91. 91
    Another Halocene Human says:

    @General Stuck: So he went on a diatribe about the superior economies of the deep south and other right to work, freedom shit.

    What the actual fuck. So looking like a 3rd world hellhole for mile after mile is a superior economy?

    Comparing the shining example of SC as paradise for those unfortunate denizens niggers of inner city Detroit/

    There are no curse words strong enough. SOUTH CACKALACKY?!

    I’ve got news for Deminted. Everybody was trying to get the hell up out of there and guess what, the contemporary remigration south has been to places like ATLANTA and HOUSTON. FFS!

  92. 92
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Kay:

    Kay, it’s a lot about my wish that at his first inaugural, he steps up to the microphones and says “Let me whip this out…”.

    Pure fantasy, never would happen in real life, but man, watching the wingtard heads kerplode would be great fun.

  93. 93
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Mandalay:

    We don’t ever talk about “gay Glenn Greenwald” or “black Eddie Murphy” because it has no relevance, so why do it for Obama and Silver?

    Because no one dismisses the opinions of Glenn Greenwald for being gay or Eddie Murphy for being black, while they do dismiss the opinions of Silver and Obama because they are gay and black respectively.

    But I’m not surprised you’re not getting this since you were demanding proof that conservative pundits are homophobes before you would believe that they express contempt for Silver because he’s gay.

  94. 94
    Suffern ACE says:

    @Alison: ummm. Gay Sullivan and Gay Greenwald are often sexually annotated in ways that imply that their sexuality colors their perspective, especially when that perspective is wrong.

  95. 95
    SatanicPanic says:

    @SatanicPanic: got distracted and didn’t include the obligatory reference to getting off of lawns.

  96. 96
    Narcissus says:

    I usually make black Glenn Greenwald and gay Eddie Murphy jokes

    Also, somebody should tell Tapper that No, there really isn’t such a thing as false false equivalency. I would but I don’t tweet

  97. 97
    Mandalay says:

    @Peter:

    For the last fucking time, the joke is not on Obama and Nate Silver.

    I fully understand that, and never argued otherwise. What I am arguing is that:
    – Sexuality and race should not be mentioned unless it is directly relevant. Most people here would probably agree with that as a general concept, but claim some special exemption if the intention is to mock the opposition. Well fine, but I don’t agree with that.
    – You demean yourself by allegedly mocking them. You just end up rolling around in their cesspool, with their shit all over your face.

  98. 98
    Doug Galt says:

    @Suffern ACE:

    I’ve seen people do this with Sullivan but not so much with Greenwald. Glenn is sui generis, and people seem to realize that.

  99. 99
    Shrillhouse says:

    I don’t find the terms “black metrosexual….” or “gay wizard” offensive at all. It’s obvious to me that these terms are being employed to mock critics of the president and Nate Silver, not Obama and Silver themselves.

  100. 100
    Doug Galt says:

    @Mandalay:

    Look, this blog is unusual in terms of the diversity of readers and commenters, so we must be doing something right. I’ll leave it at that.

  101. 101
    Mandalay says:

    @Suffern ACE:

    Gay Sullivan and Gay Greenwald are often sexually annotated in ways that imply that their sexuality colors their perspective, especially when that perspective is wrong.

    That is fine, since their sexuality is directly relevant in that case.

  102. 102
    Doug Galt says:

    @Valdivia:

    I’m not sure that’s true. The media is pretty pro-gun control.

    (To clarify, I am extremely pro-gun control myself, too.)

  103. 103
    nastybrutishntall says:

    @Alison: yes.

  104. 104
    Alison says:

    @Mandalay: Well, I’d rather be rolling around down in that cesspool then, as opposed to way up there on your high fucking horse.

    I will react and respond to bigotry in the way I see fit, and there’s nothing you can say to convince me I’m just as bad (BOTH SIDES DO IT!!!) as a fucking homophobe because this queer is happy to use their bullshit archaic mockery on them. They deserve nothing better. And you can take your holier-than-thou tsk-tsking and stuff it.

  105. 105
    Alison says:

    @Suffern ACE: Maybe some wingnuts have used his sexuality against GG, but I’ve never seen any posters here do that.

  106. 106
    Mandalay says:

    @Doug Galt:

    Look, this blog is unusual in terms of the diversity of readers and commenters, so we must be doing something right. I’ll leave it at that.

    \

    That’s fine, and I understand your honorable intentions. I just believe it’s a poor approach to adopt, but apparently I stand alone.

  107. 107
    nastybrutishntall says:

    @Mandalay: ROBOT RETURN TO LAB FOR UPDATE

  108. 108
    Narcissus says:

    “I just flew in from Beverly Hills, and boy are my arms tired is eddie murphy queer.”

  109. 109
    Redshift says:

    @Mandalay: I accept that you’re making those arguments; I suggest that you accept that most here would disagree with them.

    Both mocking ridiculous attacks and embracing them as a sign that what wingnuts consider derogatory we don’t are effective and time-honored tactics. “Yankee Doodle” is the classic example.

  110. 110
    Mandalay says:

    @Alison:

    Well, I’d rather be rolling around down in that cesspool then, as opposed to way up there on your high fucking horse.

    Fine. I don’t want to play in their cesspool, and you can keep your shitty hands off my high horse.

  111. 111
    Another Halocene Human says:

    @Suffern ACE: Sullivan, yes, seen some questionable criticism of him based on sexuality (pointing out his hypocrisy in being libertarian on same sex marriage but authoritarian on reproductive issues, however, is a totally different issue–he’s a self-absorbed, selfish prig, so his personal life is relevant there). As for Greenwald, what I’ve seen here is more along the line of bitterness that his own situation doesn’t seem to teach him any empathy for others who are oppressed by the system. Instead, Greenwald removed himself physically from the US and any possibility of understanding and empathizing with the unemployed and so on. He was also the kind of ‘bagger to bitch that anything Obama did for gay rights was no big deal while blaming him retroactively for everything that’s happened since Nixon, so fuck him anyway.

  112. 112

    @Mandalay: That’s quite a pyre you’re building for your martyrdom.

  113. 113
  114. 114
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Mandalay:

    Sexuality and race should not be mentioned unless it is directly relevant.

    It’s directly relevant because it’s a big part of why conservatives hate both Nate Silver and Barack Obama. You seem to think that they only hate them for logical, rational reasons, but that’s not so. They also hate them because they are Gay and Black, and those sins cannot be forgiven or overlooked.

    If you never mention that they hate Nate Silver for being gay, you are giving them a free pass on their homophobia and letting them pretend they only hate him for logical, rational reasons.

  115. 115
    Redshift says:

    @Suffern ACE:

    Could someone even explain what false, false equivalency is? In terms of the msm terms is it that mtp and this week are the same when one is beige and the other is desert sand?

    The most charitable interpretation is that it’s insisting that a lot of accusations of false equivalency are actually false. As such, it’s in a class with such honorable sentiments as “reverse racism.”

    I don’t actually think that much thought went into it, thought, I think it’s more likely it’s just a way of saying “Am not!!!”

  116. 116
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Suffern ACE:

    Sullivan’s problem isn’t his homosexuality, it’s his appalling misogyny. A prime example of someone with testicles who should keep his fucking pie hole shut about abortion, for example, since he can’t have one.

  117. 117
    Another Halocene Human says:

    @Mandalay: Sexuality and race should not be mentioned unless it is directly relevant. Most people here would probably agree with that as a general concept, but claim some special exemption if the intention is to mock the opposition. Well fine, but I don’t agree with that.

    Guess what, I was taught that in school just like you, but I have come to disagree with that view. Strongly.

    Not mentioning race/sex/disability comes from a place of a) indirectly trying to humanize instead of alienate, you know, a revulsion to referring to someone as a “cripple” (however, there is a more direct movement now to use language such as as “person of —” or “— people” rather than using nouns that set someone off from others) and b) not wanting to trigger prejudicial thoughts in others about someone. But it has the effect of papering over our differences–our diversity–and pretending we’re all generic beige WASP male-ish straight upper middle class over-educated “nice” people. And we’re not.

    Not speaking about who we are continues to support privilege, both overt and invisible.

  118. 118
    Valdivia says:

    @Doug Galt:

    I am pretty sure they are the first ones out of the gate with the ‘not the day to talk about it’ trope when gun massacres happen, the great exception was Newtown but in general they are pretty great at repeating the NRA and Republican talking points, whatever their personal feelings about guns.

  119. 119
    Redshift says:

    @Mandalay:

    Fine. I don’t want to play in their cesspool

    No once’s forcing you to. You, however, are trying to insist that everyone else follow your lead.

  120. 120
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Shrillhouse:

    Yeah, but you’ve got multiple working neurons that function in a coordinated manner.

    Unlike, it appears, some people posting to this thread…

  121. 121
    Aimai says:

    @Mandalay: But it is directly relevant in discussions of persons who have a (socially) marked race or sexual orientation. You don’t get to impose faux color blindness on a world in which race is still an issue.

  122. 122
    Kay says:

    @Villago Delenda Est:

    Kay, it’s a lot about my wish that at his first inaugural, he steps up to the microphones and says “Let me whip this out…”.

    I didn’t go to the first inaugural, but my section of the crowd felt like that at the last one. Obama was acting appropriately, as far as I could tell, but the crowd was just all out there. Like we no longer gave a shit how we “appeared”.

    It was fun for that reason. Democrats, unbound :)

  123. 123
    handsmile says:

    Really!? Really!? There’s actual debate here about the professional integrity and reliability of Jake Tapper!? What a kind and forgiving lot we are.

    Here’s Mr. Tapper on his new gig at CNN:

    “The show shouldn’t just be a quote, unquote Serious Anchorman feeding you your Brussels sprouts. It needs to be engaging, with some humor, some back and forth, some compelling dialogue with newsmakers.”

    That doesn’t mean there won’t be a limit to Tapper’s trademark glibness. “CNN wants me to tell the news in a way that seems genuine and authentic,” he says. “They don’t want me to be Ron Burgundy.”

    http://www.mediabistro.com/tvn.....dy_b163464

    Apparently Mr. Tapper, the new daily anchor of the “most trusted name in news.” is concerned that his journalistic ability might be compared to a satirical fictional character.

    I don’t know if Valdivia is right above (#2) that Tapper is “king idiot” because in the Village media there are a lot of one-eyed persons, but he is no less than one of the foulest and most venal princelings in that realm.

  124. 124
    Mandalay says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    If you never mention that they hate Nate Silver for being gay, you are giving them a free pass on their homophobia and letting them pretend they only hate him for logical, rational reasons.

    Well you and I have already discussed that. The evidence to support the claim that “they hate Nate Silver for being gay” is scant, but there is massive evidence that they hate him for completely unrelated reasons.

    People on the left choose to believe that “they hate Nate Silver for being gay”, but are incapable of providing the evidence to support the claim. It’s just a feeling in their gut, and they know it has to be true.

  125. 125
    Jewish Steel says:

    @Another Halocene Human: Word.

    My Jewish ancestry was kept from me and my family for 50 years because of WASPish racism, shame of not being 100% northern European stock. What a load of bollocks, huh? Hence my nym.

  126. 126
    Mandalay says:

    @Aimai:

    But it is directly relevant in discussions of persons who have a (socially) marked race or sexual orientation. You don’t get to impose faux color blindness on a world in which race is still an issue.

    You are correct, and I agree; Obama being black is ever present.

    It is just my opinion that the mocking approach Doug takes when bringing it up in an unrelated thread on Broder is not a good one. That’s all.

  127. 127
    redshirt says:

    @Mandalay: I thought you were leaving the cesspool?

  128. 128
    FlipYrWhig says:

    False false equivalency would be taking someone’s claim of false equivalency and calling bullshit on it because it’s actually a real equivalency, i.e., both sides really do do it.

  129. 129

    Don’t you get it? Both sides no longer read any establishment political commentary!!

  130. 130
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @handsmile: Holy cats, I didn’t know Tapper was going back to CNN. “Sure, I’ll skipper the titanic, as long as you give me a life boat sea-worthy enough to carry off all this loot you’re giving me!” Are they at least shoving somebody overboard to make room for him? King? Blitzer? Crowley? Burnett? CNN is like a non-lethal version of the Bush administration, nobody gets fired no matter how useless and incompetent they are.

  131. 131
    gwangung says:

    @Mandalay:

    Well you and I have already discussed that. The evidence to support the claim that “they hate Nate Silver for being gay” is scant,

    Why does this remind me of so many frustrating conversations with white people who don’t seem to get it?

  132. 132
    Valdivia says:

    @handsmile:

    you said what I wanted to say much more eloquently, I am all spleen today ;)

  133. 133
    Yutsano says:

    @gwangung: Deliberate obtuseness will stay deliberate obtuseness I’m afeared.

  134. 134
    Ben Franklin says:

    @Mandalay:

    He gets carried away with his rhetoric. He apologized To Tapper on the 2010 thread for his over-the-top exhalations.

  135. 135
    Aimai says:

    @Mandalay: I’m proud of the president for not running away from the fact that he is black, metrosexual, etc..etc… And I’m proud of Nate silver for being an out gay wizard. They are expanding possibilities and pushing boundaries for all of us. I think that is noteworthy and joke worthy.

  136. 136
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @handsmile: ugh. I can abide “humor” in a pundit’s show. Rachel Maddow does a lot of it — probably more than I would ideally like, but that’s a matter of taste. But I’m stuffy and throwback-y enough that I don’t think “glibness” should be part of a news program. Report what happened, and analyze it. Don’t write jokes about it. We have that already, and it’s called The Daily Show.

  137. 137
    Alison says:

    @gwangung: Seriously. Just like no one is racist unless they wearing a white hood, apparently no one is homophobic unless they’re running around with the Phelps clan screaming KILL THE FAGS ARGLE BARGLE.

    I’d love to see the apparently overwhelming proof that they *don’t* care he’s gay. Something explicit. Because as I and many of my fellow alphabet soup dwellers can tell you, a lot a lot a lot of homophobia is subtle, under-the-radar, implicit shit, same as with most other forms of prejudice. It doesn’t have to be overt to be real, and when you’ve been the target of it, you’ll learn that right quick.

  138. 138
    Maude says:

    @FlipYrWhig:
    Pundit shows are entertainment. They aren’t in the news division.
    The new division is too busy being inaccurate to do jokes.

  139. 139
    eemom says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    If you never mention that they hate Nate Silver for being gay, you are giving them a free pass on their homophobia and letting them pretend they only hate him for logical, rational reasons.

    I know we’ve beaten this horse already (hate that phrase, but can’t come up with a better analogy at the moment), but I’m not sure I would characterize the reasons we were discussing — i.e., that he owes his success to the possession of a unique talent, while they owe theirs to the continued existence of a public sufficiently brain dead to swallow up the swill they dish out in the guise of commentary; plus the fact that he’s been dead on right in three major election cycles now — as “logical, rational reasons.”

    More like garden variety hatred born of envy, imo.

  140. 140
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @gwangung: I don’t think that’s fair. The “gay” jibes at Silver were more like the fat jibes at Candy Crowley after she corrected Romney in the second debate. It’s a way to be gratuitously mean,, but it’s not the basis of the enmity.

  141. 141
    Alison says:

    Bleh, last comment stuck in moderation, and now this one probably won’t get through either. That’ll teach me to control my temper, though I’m not sure what word did it…

    ETA looks like it got through, yay baby jeebus

  142. 142
    eemom says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    It’s a way to be gratuitously mean,, but it’s not the basis of the enmity.

    That’s what I think wrt the Silver issue, and what I was trying to get at when we were arguing about this the other night.

    The bottom line is, though, I’m not sure any of this is worth this much of an argument at all.

  143. 143
    Mandalay says:

    @gwangung:

    Why does this remind me of so many frustrating conversations with white people who don’t seem to get it?

    Why does your pontificating remind me of some many others on the left who insist that the right hate Silver because of one solitary comment from Dean Chambers?

    Be honest: you love the idea that the right hate Silver for being gay, and you know it must be true. So this is your big chance: put up or shut up.

  144. 144
    Emma says:

    @eemom: Personally, I would sort of split the difference. They hate Nate Silver with a passion because the showed them for the hacks they were. But they use the gay thing to send a non-verbal message to their audience: you really wanna listen to the gay guy?

  145. 145
    eemom says:

    @Emma:

    But they use the gay thing to send a non-verbal message to their audience: you really wanna listen to the gay guy?

    Yes, that I completely agree with, and there we do have a parallel with the racist dog whistles the wingnuts use with respect to the president.

    There is a difference though, between wingnut politicians and and/or pundits exploiting the bigotry of others, and being actually motivated by it themselves. The question DougJ posed in his post the other night was why do the pundits themselves hate Silver so much? Hence the argument.

  146. 146
    sharl says:

    @Violet: Your link offers far more instructive archival back-and-forth in comments, but just for the record, here’s another one. It’s from March 2011 – posted about a year after yours – where Mr. Tapper got an attaboy from John Cole, but from a number of the commenters, not so much.

    Tapper addressed his commenter/critics there (#14) with a whole mess of Salon links. Someone later pointed out that those were (at the time) eight years old, and inquired as to whether he had said any such things during his brief stopover at CNN, and later at ABC.

    Tapper returned to respond (#162), which satisfied some folks, but not others. I didn’t plod through any of that, but for any online Tapperologists, there it is…

  147. 147
    Emma says:

    @eemom: Well, the result is the same, so… whether they believe what they’re saying is immaterial to the result.

    It’s like arguing over whether Lincoln was a racist. Answer: who cares? the question is irrelevant to the outcome.

  148. 148
    Heliopause says:

    @Mandalay:

    I see you’ve derailed a Jake Tapper hatefest thread. That’s a good thing, I guess.

    Maybe I have a slightly different take on Doug’s relentless use of schtick. That is, it’s cute the first two or three times it’s used, the 78,400th it’s just tiresome. But maybe it’s like shoehorning “What’chu talkin’ ’bout, Willis?” into every episode of Diff’rent Strokes, the audience has come to expect it as part of the grand ritual.

  149. 149
    Redshift says:

    @Kay:

    I didn’t go to the first inaugural, but my section of the crowd felt like that at the last one. Obama was acting appropriately, as far as I could tell, but the crowd was just all out there. Like we no longer gave a shit how we “appeared”.

    The crowd was pretty “unbound” at the first one. Cheering like teenagers at a Beatles concert, booing Cheney when he did his Blofeld act, waving goodbye and good riddance to Bush’s helicopter.

    Good times, definitely.

  150. 150
    Mandalay says:

    @Redshift:

    No once’s forcing you to. You, however, are trying to insist that everyone else follow your lead.

    Strawman.

  151. 151
    Doug Galt says:

    @eemom:

    I found that discussion quite interesting. I was genuinely taken aback at the way establishment pundits went after Nate Silver last fall. I think it’s both envy/fear and crypto-homophobia in the final analysis.

  152. 152
    katie5 says:

    @sharl: I used to love Tapper when he was a reporter for Salon. Would read him faithfully. I had hoped he would bring that sharp-edged critique of Washington culture and politics into Washington when he got those MSM jobs. I watched him get slowly swallowed by the Village and his sharpness turned to snark. A case study in PressThink. What happens to these guys, who have a liberal background? Are the canapés that irresistible?

    BTW, same thing is happening to Ezra Klein.

  153. 153
    Violet says:

    I don’t understand why wingnuts hate Nate Silver. He correctly predicted they’d win big in the 2010 election.

    What they hate now is what happened in 2012 and Nate Silver is the messenger. They’re shooting the messenger. They’d be better off shooting Fox News and other wingnut pundits who lied to them and told them Romney would win.

  154. 154
    redshirt says:

    @Violet: That’s the first person you shoot – the damn messenger! They don’t want to hear antiorthodoxy!

  155. 155
    Kay says:

    @Redshift:

    Oh, I’m sure. But don’t you think 2009 had a lot of historical weight and seriousness to it? That’s what the tv coverage was like, anyway. This didn’t feel like that. It was just 4 hours of making fun of every Republican who appeared on the giant screen, basically. They’ve been so consistently crazy! It felt like a (needed) release. Like a day off. One woman I spoke to said “we get a break from them” which I thought was really funny. Like they had been dogging her personally for 4 years.

  156. 156
    Violet says:

    @Doug Galt: Establishment pundits went after Nate Silver because if he and his ilk are right, there is not much need for prognosticating, pontificating pundits. The rise of the Nate Silvers of the world spells the end of cushy pundit jobs. They may not know it for sure, but they sense it. Their cushy lifestyles and in fact very livelihoods are threatened. They’re reacting viscerally–whatever it takes to undermine him and make him go away.

  157. 157
    Baud says:

    @Kay:

    2009 and 2013 were both joyous, but for different reasons. In 2009, it was about turning a page in history as a nation. In 2013, it was about overcoming the unhinged reactionary adversity we as a nation had faced over the previous four years, seeing our enemies driven before us, and hearing the lamentation of their women and their Boehner.

  158. 158
    Mandalay says:

    @Violet:

    Establishment pundits went after Nate Silver because if he and his ilk are right, there is not much need for prognosticating, pontificating pundits. The rise of the Nate Silvers of the world spells the end of cushy pundit jobs. They may not know it for sure, but they sense it. Their cushy lifestyles and in fact very livelihoods are threatened. They’re reacting viscerally–whatever it takes to undermine him and make him go away.

    This a gazillion times over.

    The idea of the right of hating Silver for being gay is a bit like accusing NY residents of hating OBL for the traffic snarls he caused after 9/11.

  159. 159
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    Just to get back to basics, I hope someone challenges Tapper or Cillizza to provide a few examples of “false false equivalence”, since according to CC, there are “infinite” examples to be found.

  160. 160
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Doug Galt: I still think it’s nerdophobia, in this case bolstered by actual homophobia, because it turns out that the nerd (who has his nose buried in books and knows nothing about the real world, and doesn’t look like a manly man) actually prefers men. So he’s both “gay” and gay.

    Silver’s other area, baseball, goes through the same nonsense, pitting dorky stat-heads who crunch numbers against beat writers who drink with people who work for the team and get to go inside the locker room to chat with the players. The latter are just like Joe Scarborough. They mock the former for being impractical and loving numbers rather than knowing anything about people. Their insults are often about lesser forms of masculinity, but not about actual sexuality. (Nerd as “gay,” because both are contrary to norms of masculinity.) It’s a very good fit to what you perceive in pundits vs. Silver. They’re probably homophobes too, but it’s macho headgames more so than anything else.

  161. 161
    arguingwithsignposts says:

    @Mandalay: Get a fucking life, troll.

  162. 162
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Mandalay: or like saying I don’t care for Louie Gohmert because he’s a Christian, or from Texas, or bald.

  163. 163
    Violet says:

    @Mandalay: I personally don’t think they hate him for being gay. Some of them may–I don’t know about that. But as a general thing, I don’t think they do.

    I do think wingnuts are using “gay” and stereotypes about gay people (“effeminate”, “slight build”, etc.) in hopes of undermining his authority. There could be a bit of bullying in there too.

    The thing is, Nate Silver and his fellow compatriots are judged by their results. No one cares if they are gay, straight, short, tall, male, female, whatever–all that matters are results. If he’s wrong, he won’t be followed or listened to next time. That doesn’t happen with pundits. They can be completely wrong and still have a job.

    The pundits know this at some level, even if it hasn’t sunk in yet, and thus they’ll push back with everything they have. If that means gay slurs, that’s okay. Whatever it takes because cushy Beltway cocktail parties and expensive Georgetown homes are on the line.

  164. 164
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @FlipYrWhig: @Doug Galt: I still think it’s nerdophobia, in this case bolstered by actual homophobia,

    Bizarrely, I think there’s also a twist on Molly Ivins’ old axiom that she didn’t trust anyone to cover politics if they hadn’t covered traffic accidents and local zoning committees. How can this person no one’s heard of talk about politics, when I’ve never seen him at a Gridiron Dinner or the Aspen Institute? Luke Russert, on the other hand, acts and is treated as if he were one of the original Boys on The Bus, because he used to pass out canapes when Aunt Cokie and Gampy Broder came to the house for dinner.

  165. 165
    waratah says:

    @handsmile: Does this mean Jake does not want to be another Wolf Blitzer?

  166. 166
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: I can see that — it’s like to Silver it’s all just a data set, while for media people who talk to the operatives and see the empty pizza boxes in the campaign offices it’s all about People and Drama and Narrative. And if it’s all just a data set, there’s no good reason why having a Republican strategist on speed dial ever since you met him 20 years ago in a hotel bar in Nashua, New Hampshire is worth anything.

  167. 167
    sharl says:

    @katie5: My assumption has been that the money is just too good to pass up, and as those folks get older, they get kids, mortgages, etc., and more money gets you better housing in a better neighborhood, a good (private) school, good health insurance, etc. It’s probably damn near impossible for them to say ‘no’ to the big paychecks.

    And I agree on Jay Rosen – he’s a pretty good critic of the Big Journalism biz.

    Yeah, Ezra and maybe his S.O. (wife?) Annie Lowrey at the NYT might well be next to become part of The Big Money Media Beast. I hope Weigel holds out for awhile longer. And I’ll still keep rooting for survival of Moe Tkacik as an independent journalist, despite her flaws (ditto on that for Weigel, for that matter).

  168. 168
    ericblair says:

    @Violet:

    I personally don’t think they hate him for being gay. Some of them may–I don’t know about that. But as a general thing, I don’t think they do.

    We went through this with Dubya. Was he a racist or just used racism when it was convenient for him to get what he wanted? Then the question becomes, does it matter, and probably in the end it doesn’t much.

    @Mandalay:

    Strawman.

    Having a go at fescue-Americans, now, eh. Kingdomist.

  169. 169
    Heliopause says:

    @Violet:

    Establishment pundits went after Nate Silver because if he and his ilk are right, there is not much need for prognosticating, pontificating pundits.

    There never was a need for those types, since they never were communicating useful information, even in the old days when there was far less polling information. It’s not even accurate to call them “horse race” journalists, since the point of the horse racing page of the newspaper is to disseminate information that might be useful in a betting strategy, whereas establishment political pundits are just spewing verities.

    As for how threatening Nate Silver is, let me tell you about a little something I did last year. I made a very, very simple spreadsheet with columns for the various states, their electoral votes, and a most recent polling average (I used RCP for no other reason than that it’s a simple site to read and navigate). It took only a matter of minutes per week. Then I just eyeballed it, and you know what? My conclusions were pretty much identical to Silver’s. My point is neither to be a luddite nor a self-promoter , it’s to point out that what Silver is doing is not wizardry, it’s simple and intuitive. Anybody with access to the great mass of polling data and a modest facility with dispassionate analysis could see that Obama held a small but persistent lead, Silver just puts a finer point on it. So if pundits find that threatening it tells you something about the baseline they’re working from.

  170. 170
    xian says:

    @Politically Lost: i hope someone posted about false false false equivalency. it’s mock turtles all the way down.

  171. 171
    xian says:

    @Mike Dixon: if the shoe fits…

    kinda like when you complain about trolls without naming names and their ears prick up

  172. 172
    Violet says:

    @Heliopause: That leads to the next step in polling, which will be poorly done polls that muddy the waters. I think Nate Silver did do the work to see if their methodology was any good and to toss ones that weren’t. But if polls are seen to tell the truth, then polls must be destroyed so that pundits can keep their jobs.

  173. 173
    xian says:

    @Villago Delenda Est: yeah he just happened to be going on charlie rose that week to pimp his new book…

    publicists call it “a news hook”

  174. 174
    xian says:

    @Suffern ACE: what they mean, without giving any examples, is false accusations that journalists are promoting false equivalencies.

  175. 175
    xian says:

    @Suffern ACE: what they mean, without giving any examples, is false accusations that journalists are promoting false equivalencies.

  176. 176
    redshirt says:

    @Violet:Great insight, and absolutely this will happen and is probably already happening. Weren’t there some shadowy rightwing polling groups that sprung out of nowhere last year with, gasp! Surprisingly good Reupuke numbers?

    If we cannot win the polls, we shall burn them.

  177. 177
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    Tapper almost sorta kinda responds by retreating

    Jake Tapper ‏@ jaketapper
    maybe too meta. but yes, it was meant to be a joke and also a note that pols don’t make the best media critics.
    Expand Reply Retweet Favorite More

    FoxNews is still his sister network, I guess. And do you think Cillizza new he was joking? I don’t.

  178. 178
    xian says:

    @Mandalay: you seem to have trouble with any non-literal use of language

  179. 179
    xian says:

    @Mandalay: you don’t remember the quotes from that unskewedpolls dufus attacking Silver’s masculinity?

    (we do)

  180. 180
    xian says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: someone touched a nerve

  181. 181
    Mandalay says:

    @xian:

    you don’t remember the quotes from that unskewedpolls dufus attacking Silver’s masculinity?

    Yes I do, and explicitly mentioned the comments by Chambers in post #143. Chambers later apologized for those comments:

    Those comments were wrong on my part to write and publish, them, and I again I apologize to Nate Silver and anyone who was offended by them. I have never written about anyone in the past and included comments like that addressing their physical appearance or making ad hominem attacks because I don’t believe in it and have been targeted by comments like that from others.

    So one person attacked Silver for his physical appearance, and then apologized for it. Is that all the evidence you have to justify the claim that right hate Silver for being gay?

    Go ahead and show anything else you have got. I have already looked and found nothing.

  182. 182
    Mandalay says:

    @Heliopause:

    Anybody with access to the great mass of polling data and a modest facility with dispassionate analysis could see that Obama held a small but persistent lead, Silver just puts a finer point on it. So if pundits find that threatening it tells you something about the baseline they’re working from.

    It’s far worse than that. They are truly clueless about what Silver does. Most tellingly, they argue that polling data only represents snapshots in time and cannot be used to predict future outcomes, and that polling data is no substitute for the “feeling” you get by actual attending campaign meetings.

    Not only do the Village feel threatened by Silver, but they are clueless about what the threat is.

  183. 183
    katie5 says:

    @sharl: Ditto for Chris Hayes

  184. 184
    Heliopause says:

    @Violet:

    Silver doesn’t throw out any polls though he does weight them based on past performance and other factors. Simple averaging will smooth out much of that as well.

  185. 185
    mir13 says:

    I think Mandy is saying “Both Sides Do It” by going all Andy Kaufman and unleashing the false false equivalency thing on our unsuspecting asses. Judging by the thread here some of us fell for it.

    Personally I think Tapper is an ass to once again mess with the Prez. Obama could have him summarily executed, or worse; exiled to T(ea)NN, instead of his dream job at Faux. A Brother should only have to take so much.

  186. 186
    kc says:

    @Mandalay: @Alison:

    I haven’t even seen anyone talk about Nate Silver being gay, except on this blog. Honestly, I had no idea he was gay.

    Even if he weren’t gay, the wingnuts would hate him for being right about Mitt’s election prospects.

  187. 187
    nellcote says:

    And here I thought “gay wizard Nate Silver” and “black metrosexual Abe Lincoln” were terms of endearment and a reclaiming intended slurs much like The Gheys reclaimed the word queer as in “we’re here, we’re queer, we’re not going away”.

  188. 188
    kay says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist:

    So who do make the best media critics? Fellow media? Seems like a bit of a conflict.

  189. 189
    asiangrrlMN says:

    I don’t watch any kind of news. I get the insta-hits on Twitter, then verify them through Google. I can’t stand any talking bobble head, including the MSNBC lineup. Tapper’s tweet was basically, “I know you are, but what am I?” It’s part of the reason I’ve been burned out on politics in general since election day – the same bullshit, rinse, lather, repeat.

    Another reason the traditional media dislike PBO so much is because he refuses to pander to them in part because he knows they’re all in love with the false equivalency bullshit. He has the most efficient web presence of any politician, and he can be seen by millions by putting out a video on the White House site. He’s done Reddit and a Google hangout and took questions on Facebook (I think it was). They need him more than he needs them, really, and it drives them crazy.

    @Valdivia: I didn’t like his attitude, but I thought the question was fair. The Democrats haven’t been anywhere on firearm safety in the last four years. No one has been, and yes, that includes Tapper and his band of merry idiots.

  190. 190
    Mandalay says:

    @Alison:

    I’d love to see the apparently overwhelming proof that they *don’t* care he’s gay.

    I don’t think you realize what you said there, but Joe McCarthy would endorse your approach.

  191. 191
    Mandalay says:

    @nellcote:

    And here I thought “gay wizard Nate Silver” and “black metrosexual Abe Lincoln” were terms of endearment and a reclaiming intended slurs much like The Gheys reclaimed the word queer as in “we’re here, we’re queer, we’re not going away”.

    That may be the intention, but your comparison does not fly. The Gheys reclaiming the word queer is more like the reclamation of the N-clang word; both are owned by the wronged party.

    But should anyone be free to use the N-clang word as a way of “reclaiming intended slurs”?

    If not, why is it then OK for anyone to use the term “gay” as a way of “reclaiming intended slurs”? Why is one OK, but not the other?

  192. 192
    BC says:

    @Mandalay: Fuck off and take your poutrage with you.

  193. 193
    cokane says:

    http://election.princeton.edu/.....-cillizza/

    Just because I didn’t think there was enough hate being spewed towards hacky hack Cilizza

  194. 194
    Bulworth says:

    False equivalency is a thing, sure. But so is false “false equivalency.”

    — Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) January 27, 2013

    Sure, but what about super false, false equivalency?

Comments are closed.