Love Thom Hartmann and Keith Olberman -- but why . . .

[defendandprotect]

do they insist on showing Palin's and Gingrich's and other RW nuts --

Sure -- cover it -- tell me about it -- what they did, what they said --

Don't show we HUGE pictures of them, run their film and expect me to watch that.

I don't watch that garbage.


Was just watching Thom Hartmann who had a rightwinger on -- someone committed to their

positions -- it's quite different from listening to a rightwing caller where there may

be a possibility of us learning something about why they think the way they do -- and

seeing what Hartmann offers up to them.


Keith Olbermann also frequently does the same thing with showing RW on his program --

I don't want to see video of Katie Couric interviewing Palin -- if I wanted to see it

I'd tune in!

On the other hand, want to highly recommend this program coming to us now over CABLE

and the weekend and evening repeats --

whether Keith Olberman -- Amy Goodman -- or Thom Hartmann - !!!

It's great!!

[Doctor_J]

1. I've written hartmann more than 10 e-mails

these lunatics have 1200 radio stations and 3 cable networks to themselves. Giving them air time is aiding & abetting terrorism.

Edit: I unrec'd by mistake

[defendandprotect]

6. Right ... and Hartmann followed up a Global Warming denier with someone against public ed .. !!!

Why do this --

There are probably some occasions where we'd want a bit of an introductio nto

the RW to know what they look like and sound like -- Bachmann's husband being one!! --

Randall Terry should be identifiable -- but you don't put up pictures of them across the

screen --

give me a postage sized pic -- or put them on TV briefly, talk with them briefly --

so we understand their nuttiness and lack of reception to reasonableness --


but not the way Hartmann and Olbermann are doing it -- and I think it's probably their

program designers who make these decisions and neither KO or TH are thinking about what's

going on?

Of course, Hartmann is responsible for his guests -- just as Jon Stuart is --

so I don't get either of them featuring rightwingers --


We do have to know what they say and what they stand for, the basis of their arguments --

but I don't need to have them in my face!!

Glad you agree -- keep at it!!


:hi:

[white_wolf]

2. I like that they do it this way.

They both easily destroy the right-wingers and it proves the superiority of our ideals. It shows our side isn't afraid of debate.

[defendandprotect]

8. You don't destroy them by making their pictures/video prominent and giving them

air time on liberal programming!

And, believe me, Hartmann made no inroads with the Global Warming denier just on --

he was loud and obnixous and listened to nothing Hartmann said --

Hartmann looked like a loser there --


Same with the guy who was on next who was against public education --

Hartmann was totally drowned out and all I think anyone heard was this guy in a very loud

voice Hartmann couldn't match reciting over and again -- PUBLIC SCHOOLS STINK!!


Agree -- there is a way to do it -- but Olbermann and Hartmann are doing these presentatioins

all wrong!!


I remembera also during the Reagan years that ... was it Roger Ailes ... thanked networks

even when they were disparaging Reagan programs -- simply because what most Americans saw

was prominent video/pictures of Reagan looking presidential. That's what registered.


Sad outcome for Hartmann with both of these rw guests today!

[Doctor_J]

9. Oh, sorry, thanks for playing

You obviously don't listen. hartmann doesn't "destroy" anyone, nor does he convince anyone of anything. All he does give 15 minutes more air time to terrorists, and take 15 minutes away from someone like Michael Parenti who never gets on any radio station ever.

I have taken to disconnecting his program when one of these idiots comes on.

as for being "afraid to hear other viewpoints", if I want those I can tune imto any one of 1200 stations that play right-wing hate 24/7.

[Cleita]

3. KO shows them to make fun of them, but I agree

with you about Thom Hartmann. I just wish he wouldn't have them on his show, however, his explanation is that he feels it's his duty to debunk their views. Honestly, we know they are just liars or stupid so we don't need any debunking but he thinks it's important.

[defendandprotect]

11. It's not that he shows them ... it's that he shows them so prominently ....

their pics should be small -- even if a video, shown in a smaller window --

Don't think Olbermann is thinking of the impact of this -- but those who handle

the design for his program should be thinking about it!!


All of this can be done -- just reduce the size of the pics -- reduce the coverage of

what they are saying -- we can grasp what it's all about in much less time!

Also we need to have the arguments AGAINST them be much more prominent!



:hi:

[Peregrine Took]

4. Drives me nuts, too. Why give them a platform when we need every second

of air time for our positions.

Do Limbaugh, Levin, Savage et al let liberals go on their shows and expound freely?

[Vincardog]

5. I believe Tom and Keith are doing their version of Fair and Balanced. I would prefer that they

trash theRW hacks and exposed them for the ideologues they are but it is their show.

[defendandprotect]

12. Think the problems are with the program designers and TH and KO aren't looking at it ...

the way they should --

You can present the RW and it's ideas -- just not in huge pictures --

or by playing full video of what they've said --

Give us a reduced pic and reduced veresion of their positions --

but make the argument against their positions more prominent!!



And -- again -- unfortunately today the anti-GW guest and the anti-public education

guest encounters were distressing and disappointing!!

[Vincardog]

16. I think Tom is buying into too many RW Talking Points like 'the public is interested in a Balanced

approach to settling the debt talks". He fails to say that the TAX INCREASES should be balanced with any revenue cuts.
AND he fails to mention that the bottom 80% have ALREADY made their contribution thru 30 years of insane conservative policies.

[defendandprotect]

19. Don't think he's "buying into" RW talking points ... but occasionally ...

if you're not listening to entire program it might sound that way?

Granted -- liberal hosts could always say more --

Hartmann makes clear that taxes on rich are lowest ever --

while Obama has extended those cuts for the rich --


I also like Schultz and wish that he'd also move out of MSNBC --

I'd watch him but he's on at 10 now and never think of it --

I hear him on radio, however --

[Vincardog]

22. I m listening to the entire show. Why not set your DVR to record Schultz?

[Shagbark Hickory]

7. I agree with your criticisms. It gets old after a while.

[OwnedByFerrets]

10. Thom has answered this question many times....on his show.

[Doctor_J]

13. Yes, and it's moronic every time

[defendandprotect]

14. Agree -- Thom has to come out and look at it from the POV of the liberal viewer ....

[OwnedByFerrets]

15. Oh thats rich....you calling this brilliant man moronic

or anything he does.

[Doctor_J]

18. First of all,

I will set my own intellect up against anyone's, including the Brilliant (c) hartmann. Second, his defense of giving air time to terrorists IS moronic.

[saras]

17. Liberals track the arguments and think the liberals won. Everyone else sees Palin validated.

[defendandprotect]

20. Anyone who saw Hartmann's discussion with the GW denier today

would not say that Hartmann "won" --

Nor with the guy who was anti-public education --

Tune in and watch it -- it will repeat on the cable channel tonight!



Everyone else sees Palin validated.


Strongly doubt that any Palin supporters are watching Thom Hartmann -- !!

[marions ghost]

26. Or, "everyone else" (non Liberal)

might actually begin to see the Liberal POV if they are drawn to watch a controversial debate. It could work the other way too, you must admit.

If you limit the other side completely, how are you better than Fox or Rush? Do we need our sources to be a Liberal version of their MO?

I understand the point about validation of right wingers but if it's in a critical context, I don't think you'll get too many smart people finding validation. People who are really hardcore Right are not going to watch anyway (just like we don't watch Fox). You can only hope to reach the undecideds or non-political--ie. the "liberal leaning" --no matter what you present as a Liberal in any format.

The OP is talking about toning it down rather than cutting out the visuals, and so has a point (a poll on this would be interesting). But Liberals who do the "wake me when it's over" head in the sand thing are all too prevalent. It's not possible to get away from the right wing element in our society. I encounter hardcore believers frequently. I prefer to know how the "enemy" thinks (as much as I can stand) and I think attempts at containing or controlling through avoidance of images in a media that is so dependent on images is futile.

Ideally I wish I could live in a country where there were only Liberals and the Right Wing could have their own Idiocracy and we'd have nothing to do with them at all, ever. But as we sadly see in Norway, that dream is not realistic.

[alsame]

21. Keith is doing less of it since he's been on Current. Of course, he

will cover the nutjob GOP candidates if there's a relevant story, but I notice less focus on the right wing (except for Worst Persons) on the new Countdown.

[marions ghost]

23. they could probably

ratchet it down a bit...but they are competing for viewers in an information overload world where it's all about pictures being used as visual cues. Nobody can just sit and watch a talking head read from the teleprompter anymore. Our eyes have been conditioned to scroll around & constantly want more stimulation. I get what you're saying but I'm not sure the producers feel they can do anything else if they're competing with so many other news & opinion sources. You probably like the relative sanity of C-Span or the BBC (or at times the slow pace of NPR)--I do too, but then I have more than the usual amount of patience. I have never been bored in my life. There is so much to look at and experience.

You can maybe rationalize it as some people like to hear voices more and some people like to see faces as much or more. For example --if it's not overdone, I LIKE to see the faces of the evildoers--very important to me to study their expressions, in stills and video. But I would like the pictures to vary and be updated. What I DON'T like is to see the endless repetition of the SAME video clip over and over. (If I saw Dick Cheney strolling into his office corridor ONE more time...:banghead:

[Doctor_J]

24. If you like to see the evildoers faces, turn to any other station

i would like to have some news without right wingers.

[marions ghost]

25. Well maybe one day

there can be a totally right winger image free news source. Probably others would like it too. :shrug:

Let me explain--WHILE I'm receiving the news from a perspective that I much prefer to MSM (I never watch CNN for ex), I don't mind seeing the images of right wingers (or interviews with them) as long as they are not repeated over and over. I think it is important to know the enemy and not be afraid of seeing their images--IN CONTEXT of rational people like Olberman, Maddow, Hartmann, etc, talking about them. As long as they don't do that repeat repeat repeat thing like you get on MSM. I do not, have not, and never will watch Fox or listen to right wing radio. We are talking--in context.

There's no place to hide, no world separate from these people. We can't erase them (as they have tried so hard to do to us). We do have to be willing to confront them.