QOTD -- On Chuck Todd, Willful Disinformer

 

"... Chuck Todd has essentially said that on the right there is an incentive structure that compels Republican office holders to use their time on Meet the Press for the spread of disinformation. So do you keep inviting them on air to do just that? If so, then you break faith with the audience and create a massive problem in real time fact-checking. If not, then you just broke the show in half.  

"There is simply nothing in the playbook at Meet the Press that tells the producers what to do in this situation. As I have tried to show, they didn’t arrive here through acts of naiveté, but by willful blindness, malpractice among the experts in charge, an insider’s mentality, a listening breakdown, a failure of imagination, and sheer disbelief that the world could have changed so much upon people paid so well to understand it."  -- NYU journalism professor Jay Rosen, focusing on NBC/ MSNBC's Chuck "Not My Job" Todd's role in catapulting Republican propaganda through hosting Meet the Press and elsewhere.  In an interview with Rolling Stone, Todd pleaded to being "naive" about Republican "alternate facts" and disinformation, though for years he has regularly booked Republican liars and rarely pushed back on them.  That Todd continues to be disingenuous about his role as an enabler of Republican "alternate facts," look no further than who he's giving valuable air time this Sunday on MTP -- Dumbest Senator Ron "Tiny" Johnson (R- Sanitarium), a frequent guest, dedicated Trumpist, conspiracy peddler, and all- around dolt:

 

TOMORROW ON #MTP: Covid continues to ravage the nation as the Senate debates over stimulus checks for Americans. Dr. Anthony Fauci and @SenRonJohnson join. Plus, Georgia Senate runoffs with @StaceyAbrams. #IfItsSunday pic.twitter.com/c0cymD9WO5

— Meet the Press (@MeetThePress) January 2, 2021

 

Check out the rest of Rosen's article for more details on Todd's willful blindness.

BONUS:

One of these Senators will be on Meet the Press tomorrow. https://t.co/DkMl3f2JT1

— Josh Sternberg (@joshsternberg) January 2, 2021

 

 

Twit Tweet, Thwap -- Optical Illusion

Twit tweet:

On substance, Democrats got what they wanted: that Mueller didn't charge Pres. Trump because of the OLC guidance, that he could be indicted after he leaves office, among other things. But on optics, this was a disaster. #MuellerHearings

— Chuck Todd (@chucktodd) July 24, 2019

Thwap:

"On substance, it was clear the Ted Bundy violently murdered 30 people and deserves to rot in jail. But on optics, he looked good on TV so who knows what should happen?"

— Mikel Jollett (@Mikel_Jollett) July 24, 2019

Yes, Chuck with democracy on the line we wouldn’t want you to do something crazy like focus on the actual substance. What a departure that would be from your entire life in politics of being a glorified theater critic

— Cliff Schecter (@cliffschecter) July 24, 2019

And really who cares about substance, right? Surely not the media’s job to try to focus on that instead of optics, right?

— Michelangelo Signorile (@MSignorile) July 24, 2019

Trump currently screaming like a maniac at reporters who will all later say that Democrats have an optics problem.

— Tom Watson (@tomwatson) July 24, 2019

Today the media decided it’s ok to question someone’s mental acuity based on their demeanor on TV. So we can expect the same when donald trump speaks — right?

Because every time he opens his mouth he barfs up a myriad of symptoms of Neurosyphilis, NPD, dementia & chronic idiocy.

— Philippe Reines (@PhilippeReines) July 24, 2019

Terrible optics for the Democrats. https://t.co/RxSBZqWDDN

— Crabby Tom Hilton (@TVHilton) July 24, 2019

if an optics win is when you spend three hours shouting conspiracy theories at someone who politely refuses to engage, i should have had a lot more success dating

— Alexandra Petri (@petridishes) July 24, 2019

BONUS:  It's not just poor Chuckie.  It's print media hot takers and the execrable Brian Williams, too. We saw something like this coming, but were hoping for better.  No more.

BONUS II:  No More Mister Nice Blog has more on- point commentary here and here. Amanda Marcotte bemoans the media's bizarre distortions.  Susie Madrak has more reaction from the twitterverse.

Li'l Chuckie Todd Had A Bad Night, Too

NBC's Press the Meat host Chuck "Not My Job" Todd was sure up to some expert punditry in the wake of Hillary Clinton's de- balling of neo- fascist bully Donald "Rump" Trump.  Feeling the irresistible force of "both sides! false equivalence" tugging at his Van Dyke, Todd came up with these "impressions."  First there was this hot take:

.@chucktodd: #debatenight exposed Trump's lack of preparation, but Clinton seemed over-prepared at times.

— Meet the Press (@MeetThePress) September 27, 2016

The responses came fast:

Yeah who would want that in a President? https://t.co/qfFfZ8uJ8E

— Ana Marie Cox (@anamariecox) September 27, 2016

Wait. WUT? @chucktodd thinks "overprepared" is somehow a negative?

Gawd these people are deplorable. https://t.co/IBQ3bg7jQT

— Al Giordano (@AlGiordano) September 27, 2016

Fuck. You. https://t.co/Df0uG3kg9I

— Patton Oswalt (@pattonoswalt) September 27, 2016

She is running for President, you fucking idiot. https://t.co/qBStSxkzZj

— ValerieAnn (@ScullyBully) September 27, 2016

Then, Todd stepped on his tiny dick again:

Chuck Todd says 'American public' might be tonight's big loser. #Decision2016 #debatenight https://t.co/yKuD6kyVyO

— Meet the Press (@MeetThePress) September 27, 2016

Because Clinton and Rump were "talking about themselves..."  (Hmmm, it's almost like they needed a moderator to ask policy questions and keep things on track!)  Also, see the wisdom at the top from Todd, wherein he chafes Clinton for being "over- prepared at times."  Now, if Secretary Clinton had spent 100% of her time detailing her policies, you can be damn well sure that Todd would have come back with "She bored us with her over- prepared policy details!"  Of course, this creampuff also has a need to do this because one of the Established Media Narratives that must be maintained is "politicians not addressing the needs of the American pipple!!"

Charles Johnson has the appropriate response to that bit of asswhistle Beltway conventional wisdom:

I was wondering if he’d get even worse after that “over-prepared” remark. Yep, he did. https://t.co/3fOKHyUWYV

— Charles Johnson (@Green_Footballs) September 27, 2016

(Image:  the unsurpassed Driftglass)

Today's Empty Platitude Shaming Tweet

Empty Platitude Shaming is not Prayer Shaming.

— John Fugelsang (@JohnFugelsang) December 4, 2015

As we noted in the aftermath of the San Bernardino shootings,  N.R.A.- paid- for right- wing pols were getting push back on their rote "thoughts and prayers" reaction to the frequent manifestations of gun violence in America, the same pols who continue to block even the most modest gun control measures, even after San Bernardino. The usual Republican hacks have tried to turn this into "prayer shaming," occasionally joined by embedded Republicans and "both siderists" in the "mainstream media."  Fugelsang's tweet is the most direct and accurate response to their false public piety and to those who would try to make this an issue of "prayer shaming."

BONUS:  Nice long read at Disaffected And It Feels So Good.

Insipid Political Analysis, Cont.

Hunter at Daily Kos picks up on a Chuck "Not My Job" Todd line that this is "the strongest Republican party presidential field in 36 years", bolstering the evidence that, when it comes to analyzing Republican/ New Confederate/ Stupid Party politics, our elite media sucks:

And here we have our problem: This notion that the current Republican field is "strong," the strongest in a generation, if it were not for the meddling of sideshow Donald. The current Republican field is numerous. It is not strong. A bag of mice is not stronger than a pit bull, no matter how much it wiggles, and a 16-person presidential field made up almost exclusively of embarrassments is not stronger than two, three, or five candidates who demonstrably might know what the hell they are talking about. Which are the strong candidates, then? The universally despised-by-his-peers senator? The other senator who achieved electoral success bequeathed by his father, and who has accomplished precious little since? The governor turned Christian radio shock jock? The senator who abandoned efforts to get his party to be slightly less racist after polls showing the party didn't think much of the idea? The indicted fellow? The not-indicted one? The one who touts union busting as his ostensible foreign policy credential? The universally acknowledged-as-a-failure last president's brother? If there was any one of these candidates capable of building more than a ramshackle case for leadership of their deeply fractured, ostentatiously paranoid party, they would not have fifteen mostly embarrassing opponents. Even the party financiers are finding themselves flummoxed on which of these three-legged horses to back.

So, step aside, Dan "I Got No" Balz and Amber "Waves of Grain" Phillips, you have some real competition for insipid political analysis by a Beltway "pudnit."

Distracted Voters And The Pandering Media

Bill Maher (starting around 2:15) talks about the "easily distracted voters," combining with a "shameful, pandering media" (=cough=ChuckTodd=cough=) to make life easy for Republicans like Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback (caution: language):



(h/t Crooks and Liars)

"Chuck Todd: On It"

Press the Meat's new host Chuck "Not My Job" Todd got off to a whiz-bang start this past Sunday with a big "get"-- an exclusive interview with President Obama.  Then, as Charles P. Pierce would say, his foot found a rake (whap!).  Here's David Letterman's priceless (and, we're sure to be more- than- occasional) segment, "Chuck Todd: On It."

"Meet The Press" Death Spiral: Todd To Replace Gregory?

Is NBC really going to replace Dancin' Dave Gregory with Chuck "Not My Job" Todd as Republican talking point catapulter host of "Meet the Press" (a.k.a., "Press the Meat" or "The John McCain/ Lindsey Graham Show")?  What's that definition of "insanity" again?

If so, here's a snippet of what we can expect in the future from the incisive, un-biased, well-informed Chuck (from this past Sunday's "Press the Meat"):

You know. Your original question is what did we learn about the [Obama] doctrine. And I think that I've been trying to figure out this man's doctrine now for six years. He doesn't have one.

Karoli over at Crooks and Liars patiently explains to Chuck what he hasn't bothered "to figure out" for six years because he was too busy regurgitating polling information as a substitute for analysis, and studiously avoiding informing the public (because that's not a journalist's job, dammit!).  With Chuck at the "Press the Meat" helm, the ratings plunge will continue, as will this format's already dubious credibility.

Let's see:  Chuck Todd or Rachel Maddow?  Or Chris Hayes?  Wow, the suits at NBC seem to be just as clueless as ol' Chuck himself.

UPDATE:  Fox "News'" anchor Chris Wallace throws floundering Dancin' Dave, um,  an anchor.

Forget Republican Spin: Why They'll Vote To Impeach Obama In 2015

Michael Tomasky on why he wouldn't be surprised if Republicans mount an impeachment effort after the November elections, even if they know they would not get the necessary votes to convict in the Senate:

... The question here is, what’s the point in their minds of impeaching him? If it is a rational point—to remove the high misdemeanant from office—then the above scenario holds water. But I think the point isn’t rational; it’s emotional. To punish him for daring to act like the president. Hoist that big historical asterisk skyward and place it next to his name. Try to ensure that future generations see his as a less-than-legitimate presidency. And, not least, get their right-wing kum-ba-yah-yah’s out, give the base a song they can really dance to.  [snip] 

I can hear the rationalistas: no way they’d do it. They’re too smart for that. They know it didn’t work last time. They’ll be too mindful that it might hurt them in 2016. I say nonsense to all that. They’ll do it because it’s who they are. They keep showing us who they are. Someday, Washington might actually believe them.  (our emphasis)

Tomasky addresses the problem with the Republican- wired Beltway media buying the Republican spin, people like Politic-hos' Mike "Payola" Allen,  NBC's Chuck "Not My Job" Todd, and the once great Washington Post Bezos Bugle's "politics- is- only- a- horse- race" tout Chris "The Lizard" Cillizza. These are some of the clowns who willfully and regularly catapult right-wing talking points into the "mainstream media," the latest one being that "Democrats are the only ones talking about impeachment!"  Bullshit.

Come next February or so, let's see who's right about the intent of the Republican crazy caucus:  the blinkered,  Republican- wired Beltway political "ho's" "pros" or Tomasky and the rest of us.

Saturday Reading - Cillizza and The Savvy

Two good related pieces about how "journalists" have lost the plot, as exemplified by once great Washington Post Bezos Bugle political odds-maker Chris "The Lizard" Cillizza.

Here's Jay Rosen:

Nobody knows exactly when it happened. But at some point between Teddy White’s The Making of the President, 1960 and the Willie Horton ads in 1988, political journalism in this country lost the plot. When it got overly interested in the inside game, it turned you and me and everyone who has to go into the voting booth and make a decision into an object of technique, which it then tried to assess. We became the people on whom the masters of politics practiced their craft. 

Here's Dave Weigel on Cillizza being more interested in "the inside game" than in explaining things that are "complicated":

That's similar to what Cillizza wrote about the CBO report. "The Republican ad on this CBO report writes itself: Job losses, botched rollout, etc," he explained. "The Democratic one is WAY more complicated as it relies on explaining the idea that a decline in the labor market isn't the same thing as job losses and that all of this could well wind up being a good thing for the public." 

Sure, it's more complicated, but the journalist—any journalist—is better equipped to find the truth than he is to explain how someone might lie about it, and how the lie might work.

Or, as NBC's Chuck "Not My Job, Man" Todd would say, it's not my job to sort out the truth.

More Media Malpractice

Michael Tomasky on some in the "mainstream media" rooting for the failure of Obamacare, or for anything Obama-related:

... [T]here’s a certain type of political journalism that so exists in the moment that numerous such moments have been declared to be disasters for Obama, going back to Jeremiah Wright. This kind of hyperventilating approach always turns out to be wrong and overheated. It turned out that all those things were pretty bad, but it also turned out that Obama survived them. And he’ll survive this, too.

He mentions some of the usual suspects =cough=Politico=cough=.  We'd like to offer a few more journamalists who're getting the story all wrong.

Like Chuck Todd and his never-ending false equivalencies, this time on opposition to privatizing Social Security in the Dumbya years vs. Republican hostage-taking on every possible issue today:

No one on the Democratic side of the aisle was willing to burn the place down when we didn't get everything we wanted as we've seen the Republicans, who were more than willing to do just that with taking the country on the edge of an economic collapse -- and the pundits in the media like Todd and his ilk have been doing their best to erase that hostage taking and the economic damage it did to our country from our memory banks from the moment it finally ended.

Like Lara Logan and her bosses at CBS News (we're going to have to start putting quotation marks around News pretty soon) playing to a certain audience in their botched Benghazi!  Benghazi!! BENGHAZI!!! 60 Minutes debacle:

"My concern is that the story was done very pointedly to appeal to a more conservative audience's beliefs about what happened at Benghazi," Mary Mapes told Media Matters. "They appear to have done that story to appeal specifically to a politically conservative audience that is obsessed with Benghazi and believes that Benghazi was much more than a tragedy."

We can make out the whirring sound of Edward R. Murrow spinning -- heck, even Chet Huntley's getting some revolutions.   (Look 'em up, kids.)

Just remember what the biggest political story of the past 25 years has been (the radicalization of the Republican Party) and who's been covering it in the "mainstream media" (crickets chirping).