what's Obama's "facile and demonstrably false beliefs" about MSNBC that Rachel mentioned?

[nashville_brook]

What the hell is that about?

I know -- I'm about an hour late on this. Tivo.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Dunno... but Obama just told Brian Williams that he doesn't watch cable news

so I don't know how he could have any beliefs, false or otherwise, about MSNBC.

[nashville_brook]

2. at the end of a segment on BO's Saudi trip, she did a weird "wag of the finger"

that referenced what sounded like he disparaged MSNBC and their hosts or guests. just strange.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

4. Strange, indeed.

But I get the impression Rachel doesn't like Obama much, and rarely misses a chance to criticize him.

[nashville_brook]

6. in her interview with him, i think he took an oppositional tone in order to distance himself

from "the left." it seemed like theater. and since that interview, he has continued to "distance himself from" or otherwise alienate "the left." so, i would imagine that a commentator who is known for leaning leftwards would have occasion for critique. but that's the game of politics. this was different. this seemed like a personal affront.

[jbnow]

10. I sure missed seeing that attitude. I recall one question when he

said "I know you want..." or something, like he knew his answer was not what she would prefer.
But my impression of the overall interview was nothing like yours. I thought it was friendly and thoughtful

[Pirate Smile]

3. I think it was about his comment on the "cable chatter" on Inside the Obama White House last night.

[dianegall]

7. 'chatter comment'

If it is, here is the quote:

During tonight's NBC News special "Inside the Obama White House," as the president and Brian Williams were driving to get burgers, Williams asked Pres. Obama whether when he's watching cable TV and lands on a news channel and sees a debate underway about him, does he stop and watch?

I generally don't. Mainly because I don't find most of the cable chatter very persuasive. I've used this analogy before, it feels like WWF wrestling. Everybody's got their role to play. I know a lot of these guys. And if Pat Buchanan is having a conversation with Chris Matthews or talking to Keith Olbermann, everybody's got their set pieces and, so, I don't feel as if I'm learning anything from the debate.

Well, if it was that, then I hardly think the comment facile and if it is demonstrably false, it has yet to be demonstrated.

I often turn Buchanan off, for instance, because I know exactly what he's going to say. My wife tells me to turn it back on and sure enough, he's saying just what he almost seems to be scripted to say. Olbermann's content almost never surprises me, but how he says it is almost like political satire, so it's entertaining when I am feeling like listening to smug criticism. His 'special comments' are <b>always</b> worth watching. But as for <i>learning something</i>, not so much.

As for Maddow, she is by far the best mind of all of the MSNBC lineup, but she has her own pet projects and I often wish that she'd spend far more time dealing with an issue. I'd rather have her deal with less but in far more depth.

[Uzybone]

8. if that was what Rachel was complaining about, then she is an idiot

because we all know cable news (even the liberal ones) is performance theater. When Jon Stewart went on Crossfire and said they are hurting America, he was right. Crossfire died, but in its place (like the hydra) new heads have grown which are even more partisan and theatrical. We just happen to agree with some of the ones on MSNBC. I would hope someone tasked with leading the country would not pay them any mind.

I really like the Buchanan example, is there any reason for that man to be on any show? Especially the liberal ones? NOI is less racist than Buchanan.

[janx]

13. Cheers.

:toast:

[dianegall]

15. It's practically Kabuki

Agreed. If I want news and analysis, I watch CBC and BBC; they seem to be able to keep the nonsense to a dull roar.

However, the cable news channels rarely impart a fragment that I hadn't already known or could have divined for myself. What I want out of these people is a discussion of ideas rather than a bullfight.

I have to give Maddow credit, she comes closer on MSNBC than most, but there is still a mainstream (read: facile) quality to her shows.

All of that having been said, I do watch because they say things that are least likely to strike me as infantile and absurd. I watch Olbermann because he always seems to mean it---no matter what goofiness he is presenting.

Di

PS and thanks for the welcomes :)

[Suich]

9. I feel exactly the same way about Buchanan!

He's like a broken record, isn't he?

Welcome to DU, dianegall!

:toast:

[jbnow]

11. It would have been better had he not named names...and all from MSNBC

Had he said
"I generally don't. Mainly because I don't find most of the cable chatter very persuasive. I've used this analogy before, it feels like WWF wrestling. Everybody's got their role to play. I know a lot of these guys, everybody's got their set pieces and, so, I don't feel as if I'm learning anything from the debate."
that would have been much better.

Funny that he picked on MSNBC guys while talking to the NBC guy

[Pirate Smile]

14. MSNBC is the channel they watch in the White House (no surprise) so that would

be the cable chatter he would see. He doesn't watch Faux. CNN is boring and bland. I'm sure he was just mentioning the ones he would actually see occasionally.

[janx]

12. That's it!

:hi:

Although I don't agree that she's the best mind of all of the MSNBC lineup. Then again, I don't watch the cable heads very often.

[DURHAM D]

5. I think Obama is quoted in Wolffe's book dissing MSNBC. n/t