NEWSFLASH: Rick Scarborough still respected "journalist"!
So, for those of you not following Rick Scarborough's and the New York Times' current spat, here's a summary - Scarborough claimed that the New York Times was covering Romney's wealth, while they were silent about Kerry's. The New York Times pointed out four stories they did specifically focusing on Kerry's wealth. Scarborough's response thus far has been two closely related points.
ARGUMENT ONE: OKAY MAYBE IT EXISTS BUT- TONE ARGUMENT TIME!
Scarborough alleges that one of the stories "goes on and on about how the villagers fondly remembered his grandmother as a saintly matriarch", when all it mentions of her is that nearby year-round residents "still speak in awed tones about his grandmother, who was known for her generosity and her regal horseback rides along the hilltops" (23 words is apparently at length for Scarborough) and continues on to note that Kerry's opulent childhood in places such as the French estate gave him "the sheen of privilege" and that he "exudes a Brahmin reserve". It's not exactly flattering for one thing, but more directly related to Scarborough's original point, it exists. Basically, the times was calling Kerry wealthy, left open the question about whether he was isolated from the average person's problems, but explored how he certainly looked detached and sheltered from such difficulties. That's apparently not the point though, He didn't actually mean "did they ever do a story on [one of Kerry's expensive estates]" (even though he said that). He meant "there are built-in biases about how the editors place the story". He continued on about biases, saying "It's about how they frame these stories, which is the image that lasts with people".
ARGUMENT TWO: I AM A GOD, KNEEL BEFORE ME
But Scarborough doesn't stop there. No, he has to continue, saying that while the New York Times "may have a database showing how many articles they did on each candidate. I have to talk extemporaneously for three hours a day. But the general impressions of people like myself and [other pundit] Mark Halperin, that does count in the prespective that active news consumers have." He went from back-pedaling selective reporting to bias in reporting to Bush-era throwback declarations that powerful people create reality (remember everything Thomas Friedman's ever written? The whole neo-con argument about why the WMDs were irrelevant because they create their own reality?). It's irrelevant whether what he said was actually true, just that he thought it was true, and the fact that he still feels it's true in spite of reality disagreeing. What did George Bush Rick Scarborough know and when did he know it? Nevermind if the entire point of your position as appointed President journalist is to make informed decisions inform people. So here's a test to see if we've slumped back down into that disastrous political period - does Joe Scaraborough get to keep his job in spite of refusing to perform its basic functions? I hope he doesn't.
Sources for quotes-
The original "Morning Joe" broadcast, one of the Times articles they pointed to in response, and Joe's later remarks. For bonus fun, here's Alex Pareene's excellent summary of the story so far.
ARGUMENT ONE: OKAY MAYBE IT EXISTS BUT- TONE ARGUMENT TIME!
Scarborough alleges that one of the stories "goes on and on about how the villagers fondly remembered his grandmother as a saintly matriarch", when all it mentions of her is that nearby year-round residents "still speak in awed tones about his grandmother, who was known for her generosity and her regal horseback rides along the hilltops" (23 words is apparently at length for Scarborough) and continues on to note that Kerry's opulent childhood in places such as the French estate gave him "the sheen of privilege" and that he "exudes a Brahmin reserve". It's not exactly flattering for one thing, but more directly related to Scarborough's original point, it exists. Basically, the times was calling Kerry wealthy, left open the question about whether he was isolated from the average person's problems, but explored how he certainly looked detached and sheltered from such difficulties. That's apparently not the point though, He didn't actually mean "did they ever do a story on [one of Kerry's expensive estates]" (even though he said that). He meant "there are built-in biases about how the editors place the story". He continued on about biases, saying "It's about how they frame these stories, which is the image that lasts with people".
ARGUMENT TWO: I AM A GOD, KNEEL BEFORE ME
But Scarborough doesn't stop there. No, he has to continue, saying that while the New York Times "may have a database showing how many articles they did on each candidate. I have to talk extemporaneously for three hours a day. But the general impressions of people like myself and [other pundit] Mark Halperin, that does count in the prespective that active news consumers have." He went from back-pedaling selective reporting to bias in reporting to Bush-era throwback declarations that powerful people create reality (remember everything Thomas Friedman's ever written? The whole neo-con argument about why the WMDs were irrelevant because they create their own reality?). It's irrelevant whether what he said was actually true, just that he thought it was true, and the fact that he still feels it's true in spite of reality disagreeing. What did George Bush Rick Scarborough know and when did he know it? Nevermind if the entire point of your position as appointed President journalist is to make informed decisions inform people. So here's a test to see if we've slumped back down into that disastrous political period - does Joe Scaraborough get to keep his job in spite of refusing to perform its basic functions? I hope he doesn't.
Sources for quotes-
The original "Morning Joe" broadcast, one of the Times articles they pointed to in response, and Joe's later remarks. For bonus fun, here's Alex Pareene's excellent summary of the story so far.