Aside from the inanity they dish out on a daily basis, I think it is the basic idiocy they perpetuate that is the most maddening:
MATTHEWS: Ron Brownstein, you‘re an expert, and you don‘t work for “The New Yorker,” you work for “The Atlantic.” Let me ask you this question. We have 12 percent of this country who believe that Barack Obama took the oath of office as U.S. senator on the Quran. We‘ve got 19 percent of other Americans, adding up to 31 percent, who really have doubts about his religious background, who do think he might be a Muslim. This picture with him and the turban on, what‘s it going to do?
It is just painful. When Americans tune in to our media every night, they run the real risk of becoming dumber.
*** Update ***
Video evidence:
stogie
You can’t impugn his arithmetic skills, but his logic is sadly lacking
Josh
Didn’t a recent Pew survey report that about 20% of Americans think the sun revolves around the earth? If so, it’s surprising that so few people think Obama’s a Muslim.
anonymoose
54% of the country believes that Matthews is a moron. Another 60% believe he is an idiot, that adds up to 114% of the US that believes that Matthews is a douchebag.
jake
Gad that’s painful.
And you left an “E” out of “Corpse.”
calipygian
What kills me is:
Even if Obama was a Pastafarian and took the oath of office on a jar of Ronzoni, who gives a shit?
I mean, really?
Martin
Ronzoni is terrorist pasta, pal!
cain
OT: I was reading this link where Juan Cole is discussing Afghanistan. The MUP needs to be very careful about Afghanistan. We don’t want to repeat the mistake the Soviets made. That it might be the original game plan by Bin Laden I remember it being speculated upon back in 2002 or something like that.
Bush as usual fucked up his chance of earning Afghani goodwill and help shoring up Karzai. God.. when I think of all the missed opportunities… This year can’t end fast enough.
cain
PaulW
On the bright side, aren’t the t.v. ratings down? Fewer people getting dumbinized.
NonWonderDog
I thought the poll actually showed that 12% thought Obama was a muslim, and 19% were “not sure.” It’s certainly not accurate to equate “not sure” with “might be a muslim,” and it doesn’t follow that “is a muslim” means “took Quran to swearing-in photo-op,” but I think it was still a single poll he was referring to.
cleek
it’d have to be couscous – the wicked pasta of Arab north Africa.
Joshua Norton
I’ve given up on the news. One night I actually could hear my skin crawling so I took all the news channels off my cable remote setup. I don’t even know where they are anymore.
John S.
Why not?
That Not Sure son-of-a-bitch destroyed the value of Brawndo stock and had us put water on crops from out of the toilet and shit!
Sounds like Isalmofascist tactics to me.
Pizzled
1% of Americans think that Obama’s Jewish, according to the Pew poll. I’d like to see some McCain statistics.
Splitting Image
In fairness, I do have a problem with The Cover. The artist failed to represent the key part of the Right Wing View of Obama which would have cemented the picture as satire: a Christian symbol of some sort to prove Obama’s connection to Jeremiah Wright’s anti-American religion. Some of the money the Obamas pocketed off of the Rezko deal wouldn’t have been amiss either.
What makes the Right Wing View laughable is that it contains the contradictory elements of a lifelong Muslim being mentored by a militant Christian preacher, a politician who is dangerous because he is going to change everything and disappointing because he isn’t, and a person whose world-view makes him ignorant and naive and whose other world-view makes him treacherous and calculating.
The cartoon didn’t exaggerate any of those qualities; it sanitized them. It reduced the conflicting stories about who the Right Wing wants Obama to be into a fairly consistent (and dangerous-looking) picture of what he might be. That’s why people worry about it causing more damage than the authors thought.
Of course, all is forgiven if the plan was to have a second article appearing in the next issue painting Obama as a demented Black Liberation Christian, and a third the issue after that making him out to be a corrupt Chicago politician, all of them quoting the same sources contradicting each other.
That would actually be pretty impressive. As it is I don’t think the picture was especially funny or sinister, just sort of par for the course for the New Yorker.
John Cole
They were two different questions according to Matthews. How many think he was sworn in on a koran, how many have doubts about his backround. There is overlap between the two questions, and to assume they are not and add them to say that 31% of the public questions him is idiocy. Look at how Hitchens treats a similar issue:
Jake
I caught Lou Dobbs tonight. His show is absolutely terrible. He’s still going on and on about the fucking Mexicans, it’s unreal.
He also tries to paint this picture of being an independent and not liking either candidate, but he sure does get his jabs on Obama in.
Just Some Fuckhead
Dobbs is a Republican with a vague sense of shame. That’s where the “picture of being an independent” comes from. The Mexican obsession thing is from the syphillis eating his brain.
Josh
Add to that Larry King on Sunday night talking about UFOs and having all sorts of weirdoes calling in and asking some of the most insane questions of his UFO-hunting guests. It sounded like Art Bell.
Anne Elk (Miss)
As usual, the Monty Python gang had it right about 40 years ago….
gaucho
While I’ve heard plenty of arguments in favor of the US someday adopting a multi-party system (read: parliament)… Lou Dobbs has got to be the manifestation of the poison pill of that argument. Imagine an American version of Le Pen…
Just Some Fuckhead
100% of John Sidney McCains think Obama is a whippersnapper.
Ninerdave
Lou Dobbs is a fucking moron. There I said it.
JL
The dumbing down of America came with 24/7 news and talk radio. Before people had to rely on the print media which was pretty good back then. Now they still think that Al Gore said he invented the internet. This morning on Morning Joe, they were discussing why people would still think that Obama was a Muslim. I did shout very loudly at the tube, but doubt that they heard me, that it was because of reporters like them.
Anne Elk (Miss)
Found the video!
Dreggas
real pastafarians use barilla.
Just Some Fuckhead
That is eerily similar to Matthews’ schtick, including the pursed lips spitting out words.
bayville
Same subject, different loon.
Dear Troops:
I am sorry our national media is populated by dishonest buffoons like Matthews and Lopez who have either advocated this nonstop war in Iraq or who have enabled this disaster to continue.
Apologies,
America
hamletta
Maybe The Cover presents a teachable moment for the American people. I saw a good piece on CNN in the breakroom at lunch. The basic thrust was “Why do people believe these lies when they’ve been debunked over and over?”
And yes, they actually used the L-Word.
jo6pac
That’s the Liberal media right. The ones that rule the world? It’t so confusing.
jo6pac
Just Some Fuckhead
Lesbian?? I thought the cover was about Obama, not Hillary Clinton.. ha, Satire, Bitches!
Ninerdave
Funny how Monty Python is still relevant, maybe more so, after all these years.
skippy
i don’t know about you, but i think that new yorker cover is just plain offensive!
John Cole
The Daily Show is awesome tonight.
They did a man on the street trying to explain humor that looked like the liberal blogosphere yesterday.
Just Some Fuckhead
Now THAT’S funny shit.
4jkb4ia
John is not watching The Game Which Will Not End! Here it will be noted that Nate McLouth made a very nice throw, albeit to get a catcher. Now it is Ludwick’s turn to be a hero.
4jkb4ia
McLouth beat out the bunt! Also very nice.
4jkb4ia
I can say “intentional walk”.
Nathan R
Geez, did Tweety spend his formative years watching Monty Python instead of Murrow or Kronkite? Or can the MP gang predict the future? It’s gotta be one of the two. Matthews’ shtick is virtually indistinguishable.
NonWonderDog
I still think this is just a verbal fuck-up, and not really indicative of anything. Tweety occasionally goes into incomprehensible rant mode, but it’s not like he’s the worst out there. Perhaps “fourth worst not on FOX News,” but not the worst. He even has flashes of lucidity, once a month or so.
What really hacked me off today was the endless analysis of a silly poll showing that 70-something percent said McCain would make a “very good” commander-in-chief, while only 48% said the same of Obama. I just sat there dumbstruck and unable to figure out what to scream at the TV, since “very good commander-in-chief” is so entirely meaningless that no one could even attempt to explain what the poll meant or what relevance it might have outside of “bad news for Obama (I think).” And presumably both candidates scored highly on “good commander-in-chief,” but that fact wasn’t sensationalist enough to bring up.
Really, does a “very good commander-in-chief” mean a president with the confidence to take command of troops on a battlefield (which has only happened twice in US history)? Does it mean someone who will nominate “good” colonels to general rank (something about which I’ve always doubted the president’s actual role)? Does it mean one that’s adept at claiming that the title “commander-in-chief” gives the president the power to ignore any act of congress as long as they declare a “war on [noun]” first? Does it mean someone who’s proficient at getting the country entwined in neverending undeclared wars/occupations while threatening to start yet more? Where does G.W. Bush rank on the “very good commander-in-chief” scale, for reference?
NonWonderDog
And if commander-in-chief prowess has anything to do with Iraq war strategy, why the fuck wouldn’t they just poll that?
liberal
Uh, this crap is exactly why those of us who weren’t offended per se by the cover but saw that, from a practical viewpoint, the damage it would cause Obama would far outweigh any possible good disagreed with your opinion supporting the New Yorker on this.
harlana pepper
Only difference today being that John Cleese’s bearded character is replaced by a leggy brunette.
Clio
Get this…I’m driving to work this morning and listening to NPR (Diane Rehm). She has Karen DeYoung, who is the senior diplomatic correspondant for the Washington Post, on the show. She actually says that neither candidate has given specifics on the type of missions that will be allowed under his plan for Iraq, and that is something that reporters should be looking for. Did the “senior diplomatic correspondant” for a major newspaper just miss Obama’s foreign policy speech yesterday when he outlined specifically the types of missions (protecting our troops and diplomats, rooting out remaining Al-Quaeda, training Iraqis) that he would specify when he changes our Iraq mission upon entering office? Being as “careful getting out as we were careless getting in”? The only explanations are that she missed the speech or that she heard it, decided it doesn’t fit into the narrative and ignored it. Both of these are unacceptable.
Andrew
Not too surprised with Matthew’s statement. Stolen elections or not, pretty damn close to half of this country voted for Bush not once, but twice.
Even without an ounce of further evidence this would convince me that half of the people in this nation are hopelessly retarded. Sadly, I have a great deal more evidence.
liberal
Andrew wrote,
It’s even more bizarre when you look at the white non-Hispanic vote.