Another MSNBC Analyst Suspended Over Words Said

I think the trend is ridiculous, but even more ridiculous is when these people apologize afterward when they have nothing to apologize for. Halperin is completely entitled to thnk Obama is a dick. What he's not entitled to do on-air is say the word "dick," and I don't suppose he willfully and heedlessly intended to, so what he should say is "I apologize for saying 'dick' on TV. I shouldn't have done that."

I agree that MSNBC should be entitled to fire him though - not for thinking Obama is a dick but for getting them in trouble with the FCC.

If I were President Obama, I would actually be more insulted by the phony apology than for the incident itself. It's patronizing and dishonest, and he should say in response, "Be a man, Halperin. Stick to your guns. We can even discuss whether I'm a dick or not, but don't try to blow smoke up my butt with your dodgy apology. I won't stand for that, though if you man up and maintain that I'm a dick, at least I'll respect you for that."

 

While I agree with you, BTA, it's interesting to know what perspective media talking heads are coming from regarding their take on particular politicians. Obviously biased does exist in the media, whether they want us to see it or not. Personally, like you, I believe it is better if people just put their cards on the table for all of us to see, rather than camouflage it in rhetoric while pretending to be objective about a particular politician, or issue, for that matter.

 

Of course, in Halperin's case there is the (not unlikely) possibility that they suspended the man because he contradicted the editorial line. Silly, but somewhat understandable. At the more Stalinist FOX he would have gotten on the air the next day, denouncing, with a straight face, as a(nother) liberal smear and cruel lie the allegation that he ever called Obama a dick.

And anyway, America, the country of Playboy and Penthouse, is proto-fascist and paleo-prude when it comes to sex, nudity or words that describe sexual organs (ie. imagined nudity?). Transgressions will be punished with unnecessary and harsh sanctions, because (that, and because the religious nuts will start outraged harassment campaigns over such matters with great zeal). This is as idiotic as the hysteria over Nipplegate (and the sanctions which were, startlingly, directed at at JJ and not at JT (even though I think sanctions as levelled were justified on the grounds that it was a butt ugly nipple and that she didn't have the good sense of hiding it)).

Probably, had Halperin immediately said said "Oh, f*ck! This is a family program!" they would have left it at that nothing would have come of it, oh wait, I got that quote wrong, it would have been "Oh, *beep*! This is a family program!" Halperin's unforgivable "gaffe" will lead to enhanced censorship by use of more efficient swear filters, much to *beep* Cheney's dismay.

 

And the oxymoron of the month goes to...

 

Snook,
reliably, you don't get my point.

I wrote about "Stalinist FOX", and and with "Stalinist" I alluded to an episode last week when of FOX host Chris Wallace interviewed John Stewart. In the interview Wallace had said that while MSNBC has a liberal agenda, that FOX 'tells the other side of the story', i.e. has a conservative one. The next week Wallace went out and 'set the record straight', asserting, that he never said what he said, and that in fact he meant 'the full story'. That's what I mean with Stalinist. Wallace had strayed from the editorial line, and that had to be corrected.

I call that Stalinist, since under Stalin, pictures were edited to meet the correct narrative of the day - comrades who had fallen in disfavour and who had been executed or put into the Gulag were edited out. According to the official line, they had never been there.

​

In similar vein, FOX rewrites their own narrative as well.

 

Halpren is pretty much a fixture on Morning Joe, MSNBC's most conservative program. He is often supposed to be one of those moderating sidekicks [much like Mika] to Joe's rabid conservatism. He often likes to make phony and inane comments about how Obama will/should play nice with the "other" party. They pretend to miss the point that Republicans will never, ever, "play nice" with Obama, under any circumstances. Republicans even walk away from their own policy ideas if Obama decides to back them. While I suspected his moderate pretense was just that, a pretense, it seems his dislike for Obama is as deep as most other Republicans.

FOX is quite different because a lot of those guys, like Beck, are paid by outside sources to comment the way they do, whether or not they really mean what they are saying. Beck has a contract with one of those phony "think tanks" that pay him and in return hand him his talking points. I think it is Freedom Works but I could be wrong. These "think tanks" are really nothing more than fronts for large coporations and industry interestes pretending to do research and other "scholarly" work. There are a few other talking heads on FOX who have contracts with different business fronts.

I looked it up and it is Freedomworks:

http://www.adweek.com/news/advertis...e-groups-paying-talk-show-endorsements-132573

 

Actually, I think this practice - trying to erase your tracks and/or apologizing for being "misunderstood" started before Stalin, and certainly continued since. TGS does have some right... although I'd say that right-wing and authoritarian aren't necessarily as distant as he implied with the "oxymoron" statement .

 

Jane you ignorant ****...