Lose the waxworks and let a little truth shine in.
From the New York Times:
...As for “Meet the Press,” Ms. Turness said she worked with Mr. Gregory to try to make changes, but “we weren’t able to build a new vision together in the end.”Her new vision for “Meet the Press” includes adding a regular panel of journalists who will question guests, something of a return to the venerable show’s original format. “The show needs more edge,” she said. “It needs to be consequential. I think the show had become a talking shop that raked over the cold embers of what had gone on the previous week. The one-on-one conversation belongs to a decade ago. We need more of a coffeehouse conversation.”...
You want edgy?
Put Liberals on teevee. Real Liberals.
It's just that simple.
Sure, everyone has their own version of Ed Kilgore's list of people who should never, ever be allowed access to a microphone and camera every again. And banning that herd of establishmentarian testicles cozies would be a very fine thing.
But a much finer thing would be a frank and open and even, yes, even edgy conversation about why those establishmentarian testicles cozies were allowed to come into being in the first place. Why they have been invested with such enormous power to warp our national agenda. And why, why, why the simple act of stating blindingly obvious truths about our politics has been effectively banned from these precincts by the very people whose job it is supposed to be to talk about hard truths.
You want edgy?
Put Digby on your panel.
Put Hal Sparks on your panel and let him rip.
Hell, put me on there.
And watch us go go go.
11 comments:
Drifty, guys like you are in what we call the "reality based community." You believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of "discernible reality." That's not the way the world really works anymore. We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality-judiciously as you will-we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're History's actors...and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do. So, deal with it, ok?
Hal Sparks, John Fugelsang, Rick Overton, Bob Cesca, Charlie Pierce, The Rude Pundit, (yes I listen to the Stephanie Miller Show, sue me). Heck almost anybody outside the beltway bubble would bring some perspective on what is really happening in this country.
Unfortunately, you and Blue Gal would be like holy water on a possessed person's skin.
"The truth! It burns! It BURNS!!!"
Liberals on TV? That's crazy talk!
First, forget about My Man Chuck Todd (props to C. Pierce) and hire Rachel Maddow to host the show. Then, yeah, all that stuff you said. Of course, the standard roster of guests will avoid the show like ebola. But that will be a good thing. MTP will then be able to book guests who have something useful to contribute to the national dialogue.
People would crap their pants if Digby or Hal Sparks was on the TeeVee (But I think I would through a block party). Just put on Rachael and let her give a nod to the band.
Chuck Toad is a sure sign that you will be able to enjoy more MTP pre-emptions in the coming months.
It's gonna take more than a goateed testicle cozy to reverse this decline.
Continuing to call the cheerleader for so-called centrism the "moderator" of the show no matter who fills that seat is laughable.
In olden times way back when there were anonymous journalists on the panel, the guy really was a moderator. He told the panel members when it was their turn. Now, it's a gabfest of who can get the craziest pol with an axe to grind.
I've been telling them for months to do this I guess they were listening. Pity they still felt the need to shove Chuckie Tool in there.
Up with Chris Hayes was the only show in years that regularly had on actual experts on subjects and studiously avoided talking heads and push pundits. Pity All In isn't the same.
Edgy?
Droneglass would fall apart the minute any question of criticizing the Dems came up...
The only area where 'both sides' can be equated is their service to capital, empire and the ruling class. And that covers pretty much everything of importance.
The only area where 'both sides' can be equated is their service to capital, empire and the ruling class.
This is a phenomenally stupid sentence, that is based on no actual reality. I hope it made you feel good and superior.
So tell us, link to your blog that I am sure is full of all kinds of action items and solutions to this problem that you insist is prevalent and equal on all sides? I mean, all the time you spend writing 'droneglass' and 'malefactors of great wealth", you must have some ideas of your own on how to progress?
Post a Comment