Christiane Amanpour must have hurt Tom Shales delicate fee-fees, or maybe Shales has a big old mancrush on Jake Tapper, but that still doesn’t explain the lengths to which he’s taken his one-man jihad against her. Not only did he accuse her of sympathizing with the Taliban, his whole column is full of petty bitchery like this:
Tapper, in fact, grew quickly and comfortably into the role of “This Week” host and became a kind of “favorite son” in campaigns by fans on Facebook and the Internet generally — even as the clock ticked his interim tenure away and the Grand Duchess Amanpour approached on her royal barge from overseas. Is this a classic case of fixing that which wasn’t broken? The question is especially apt considering Amanpour’s $2 million annual salary, a glaring extravagance at a news division suffering mightily under the cruelty of cutbacks and personnel pruning.
(via Atrios)
Pancake
Almost nobody likes her personally, whether from the Left or the Right; just ask Bill Clinton what he thinks of her. It’s never been clear as to why Media Matters loves the bitch so much.
JGabriel
Mistermix, that would be “Christiane”, not “Christine”.
.
SFAW
Wasn’t Shales a movie reviewer? (So to speak – I don’t recall ever reading one of his reviews that was useful. But maybe I’m confused. Also.) So what’s the deal, did he look at Frank Rich and say to himself “Boy, that shore looks E-Z, I kin do that tooo!”?
He brings almost as much to the table as Breitbart, but without the humility.
Jay
I have not watched the show for years. But I watched yesterday because she was on it. I like her. I thinks she is classy and beautiful.. But then what do I know I am from Iowa and usually just see corn fed females.
Hugin & Munin
Pancake: Why such hostility to women?
DougJ
I did think Tapper did a good job and I’m sorry to see him go.
But what Shales writes is frankly racist. Amanpour is Persian, therefore she loves terrorists.
Scott
@SFAW:
I think Shales has always been their TV critic. He did some film reviewing on NPR for a couple of years.
Personally, I think his complaining isn’t going to help the anti-Amanpour faction very much. He comes across as unbalanced and more than a little racist with the OMG TERRIST stuff.
rickstersherpa
It is the Village reacting to protect its own turf. Heaven forbid that anything from the outside should pierce the bubble.
There is also the sexism.
Shales was fresh doing TV reviews 30 years ago, but the last ten years have been about protecting all his old friends in the TV news business.
That the Powers that Be don’t like Amanpour is kind of endorsement in my view. She does not suck up and play the courtier apparently.
Emma
Is pancake the new troll? If so, troll!fail. Can we ask Bill back, please?
c u n d gulag
I watched, and thought she did a damn fine job.
Maybe this’ll prod that idiot Gregory, and that old fool, Schieffer (Wallace is beyond help) into doing a better job, and not just licking-up to conservatives.
mistermix
@JGabriel: Thanks, fixed it.
Allison W.
Why is he treating Jake Tapper like he is some underdog outsider?
Allison W.
@Pancake:
Why doesn’t the left like her?
Pancake
@Allison W.:
While she’s been suitably anti-American in her reporting over the years, she dug a big hole with the Left when at the height of Clinton’s impeachment problems, she attacked him personally and on a live TV feed. It probably was one of the few times that those on the Right “liked” her, but not so much on the Other side.
Ted the Slacker
What DougJ said.
This is Breitbart-level hackery.
Bill E Pilgrim
I watched with amazement as she included someone from Pakistan, and was thinking my god, is the US media going to actually talk about anyone in the rest of the world, and not as little plastic soldier and villager figures in a sandbox but as actual people with thoughts and opinions and you know, humanity?
And then of course, the answer: Not if Tom Shales can help it.
Lest anyone think otherwise this is a demonstration that the insular, narcissistic, Village-only view of the world is not an accident but purposely created — and fiercely protected- by the Villagers themselves.
I thought she was fine on the domestic stuff, a little conservative at times actually if anything but then they all seem that way to me. The discussion with George Will and Paul Krugman was a high point, Will actually agreed with Krugman before scampering back like a space lobster into right wing myths when Krugman pointed this out, and denying that they had agreed on anything.
It must be hard week after week being shown to be such a know-nothing, right in plain view of everyone. Poor guy.
Bulworth
Seriously?
When did Tom Shales turn into Michael Savage?
Allison W.
@Pancake:
Is that all? The left can really hold a grudge. Seriously, is this all?
Cynicor
@Bulworth: “Amanpour didn’t stick to discussing news of the week with the show’s estimable, exceptional panelists — among them George F. Will and Donna Brazile…”
They had to cut out the next part of the sentence, “…to name one,” to save space.
Keith
@Bulworth:
Right around the time Mace Windu reflected his force lightening back at him.
aimai
Still, props for the oblique “Cleopatra” reference (she’s approaching on her luxury barge)–does that make Jake Tapper Ceasar, or Rome itself?
aimai
Napoleon
God is Shales a POS.
NonyNony
@Allison W.:
Pancake’s a troll and has been through numerous comment threads. The telltale sign is when he suggests that “the left” hates her because she was “sufficiently anti-American”. The only people who think that “the left” in modern-day America are anti-American are trolls and severely stupid conservatives.
Also anyone who talks about how “the left” is united in, well, anything betrays that they have no real knowledge of the actual American “left”. Any two members of the actual American “left” could argue about the color of the sky for days on end – mounting serious and tedious debates on whether it’s actually a shade of “powder blue” or “cornflower blue”, and only uniting when a conservative shows up shouting that the color of the sky is actually green, that the idea of a blue sky is part of the homosexual agenda, and loudly demanding that the science textbooks at the local middle school be changed to remove all references to blue skies.
Bulworth
Grand Duchess? Does the Washington Post have anyone that edits its articles?
Bulworth
At least he acknowledges what these Sunday shows are–“established permanent floating chat games”. Problem is he says that as if he admires it.
Bulworth
WTF?
Maybe Amanpour was thinking of, oh I don’t know, women, children, and other unarmed human beings killed by drones or by American soldiers in one of our many outputs around the world. Of course it’s impolite to mention these other people on what is supposed to be a show dedicated to celebrating America’s political class…
In Shale’s world, and in the world of the Washington Post, there are only Our Men & Women Serving in the Military, and The Terrorists.
eemom
Shales has been the TV critic for the WaPo, like, forever. That is his pedigree. Maybe he just wants his 15 minutes of controversy.
Allison W.
@NonyNony:
lol! okay.
Crusty Dem
Shales is a perfect example of what happens when you put 250 lbs of bullshit and jowls behind a typewriter at a “major newspaper”. What editor in their right mind would use good money and column inches on such a pathetic moron and his dysenteric ramblings? That article took reason, prose, and sanity out behind the woodshed and beat them unconscious. Any time a writer has to resort to “foreigner who sympathizes with terrorists”, you can bet there’s a complete abscence of insight.
eemom
Media Matters is on the “creepy” mofo.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201008020006
debbie
I thought she was a real improvement over Tapper. And that “foreign journalist” is one of the top authorities on Pakistan, which in light of Wikileaks was one of the main topics.
SRW1
“… that still doesn’t explain the lengths to which he’s taken his one-man jihad against her.”
Let’s see: She’s female, foreign-born and is stealing a place at the trough from a good friend of his. I’d say VSP nativism.
Steve M.
I wish he’d just be honest and say, “The sight of Christiane Amanpour makes my dick shrivel.” The same goes for Bob Somerby when he watches Rachel Maddow. It’s irrational, and they should have the honesty to admit that it’s irrational.
debbie
The New York Times was a bit more positive:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/02/arts/television/02watch.html?th&emc=th
Funny Shales didn’t comment on her aggressiveness towards Pelosi.
patroclus
The good news is that Jake Tapper can now spend more of his time tracking down all the leads in the multitudinous Laura Ingraham death threat cases that he’s so fond of making up completely out of wholecloth.
El Cid
Amanpour is anti-American because she knows half a shit about the Middle East [and South Asia, sorry] by having both been there and knowing people there as something other than indistinguishable seething brown people; dumbasses who know nothing about anything except political gossip are clearly better hosts for a national news & topical discussion program regularly sponsored by the largest agro- and military-industrial complexes.
El Cid
@eemom:
For those who don’t follow the link, the Shales/rightwing shouting slander campaign has begun.
I am outraged that ABC would hire a woman who praises on-air the accomplishments of Osama bin Laden and hopes that all the dead Nazi soldiers would arise from the graves and kill us.
KXB
Tapper was a light-weight. Good-riddance.
Amanpour has improved since she first came on. She is more willing to acknowledge that she does not hold all the answers.
Shales is a jiggly idiot. Because Amanpour has said mildly critical comments about Israel in the past, has portrayed Palestinians as something other than shouting terrorist monkeys – Shales has determined that she is unfit for the job.
cmorenc
Biggest tell-tale sign that Amanpour is a real journalist asking incisive, substantive questions: the discussion panel was only Will, Krugman, and Brazille, and no fourth member, i.e. the seat usually filled under Tapper or Georgie Boy by some right-wing bullshit artist out to refocus the discussion onto GOP talking points rather than substance. No Liz Cheney, no Tony Blakeley, Bill Kristol etc. Yes, Will is the reliable regular true-believer conservative on the panel, but his redeeming virtue (other than when global warming is the subject) is that he tries to persuade by rational, fact-based argument (even though there’s ample room to disagree with many of his “facts), rather than ideological propaganda.
The reason the fourth chair was missing is that the usual bullshit artists are afraid of Amanpour – she demonstrated Sunday that she won’t back away from seeking substance or asking incisive follow-up questions, and she won’t serve as witting or unwitting enabler for political bullshit artists. The bullshit artists are more comfortable with someone like Gregory or Tapper who will merrily help them divert discussion along the lines of preferred partisan talking points.
daveinboca
Bill E Pilgrim
Paul Krugboy isn’t worthy of tying or shining George Will’s shoes. And Tapper was better than Amanpour, this from an ex-FSO who likes Fareed Zakaria.
In fact, Zakaria would be a better host than Amanpour, if This Week wanted to internationalize its scope.
daveinboca
@cmorenc
“The reason the fourth chair was missing is that the usual bullshit artists are afraid of Amanpour.”
and you know this how? And can substantiate it?
liberal
@Bulworth:
My admittedly vague impression is that Shales is pretty liberal on all subjects except things related to Israel.
timb
@SFAW: He’s a fantastic TV reviewer and movie critic IMHO, but he’s waged a jihad on her since day one and I do not know why
cmorenc
@daveinboca:
Because:
1) It’s relatively rare for the fourth chair in the “This Week” panel to be absent, under either of its previous hosts. They always manage to dredge up one of the usual suspects.
2) Did you watch the way Amanpour conducted the show? She unambiguously conveys that the show will stay focused on material, important substance, without being abrasive, prosecutorial, or pompously opinionated herself the way Tweety (Chris Matthews) is. I’m judging that from the way Amanpour conducted this first show, it’s not going to be quite the cozy village club-sphere it’s often been in the past. It’s not just right-wing bullshit artists, it’s also those nominally on the left (Arianna Huffington comes to mind) who may not thrive as well in the new atmosphere of TW.
Triassic Sands
I don’t watch This Week and I never will. The most I’ll ever see is a clip from time-to-time online. That’s more than enough. So, I don’t care who the host is Tapper or Amanpour.
One thing’s for sure — neither one of them is worth anything approaching $2 million.
As for Shales…the guy reviews television fergawdsake, talk about worthless.
liberal
@NonyNony:
Fixt.
timb
@Bill E Pilgrim: Not to mention Ahmed Rashid is an absolute stud of a journalist whose opinions on America domestic policy are far more insightful and researched than anything George Will has said since 1993
timb
@NonyNony: nominated to the comment Hall of Fame…just wonderful
liberal
@Steve M.:
I doubt it. Somerby has a very particular and somewhat odd view of the world, and his dislike of Maddow makes perfect sense in that framework for reasons having nothing to do with Maddow’s sex.
Frank
@Pancake:
I haven’t watched any of the political Sunday morning shows for years so I have no clue who either Tapper or Amanpour is.
But your comment reminds me of Michelle Bachman when she demanded that the media should investigate congress people for their anti-American views. With that in mind, can you give us some examples of Amanpour’s anti-American reporting over the years?
Comrade Kevin
@cmorenc: Go take a look at daveinboca’s blog. It will give you the answers to any questions you might have about him. In short, he’s a buffoon.
Brick Oven Bill
I mean, really. What Republican wouldn’t sympathize with the Afghans? They are experiencing the full-throttled tyranny of the US Government and they don’t even get any representation. Could you imagine if Texas or Alaska had US troops on their soil and no voice in Congress?
Or does tyranny stop at the border?
daveinboca
Comrade Kevin—Yeah, from your handle, that brain-fart comment of yours would fit your “mindset,” which projects your own flimflammery onto those smarter than yourself.
@cmorenc
As I suspected, you are taking your own conjecture and biases and projecting them as “facts,” something that the left perennially accuses the right of doing.
I was actually interviewed by Amanpour during the First Gulf War while at the US Embassy in Riyadh seconded to Dhahran and have nothing against her facts. Her tendency since has veered toward a Eurocentric POV [she recently lived in Paris, as I did, for years], and I don’t think she’s a good fit for TW unless they are totally revamping, in the which case, that fourth chair won’t even be necessary. She tends to be light on Hezbollah, an Iranian-supported terrorist organization, working out of Beirut, where I learned Arabic. The Shi’ites in Beirut are squelching Lebanese democracy by assassination of politicians & journalists, so Amanpour’s look-the-other-way stance does merit condemnation. But unless Shales is aware of this or some other bias, he might just be shooting blanks.
As for Shales in general, he sucks big-time, and like a broken clock, happened this time to be close to correct—happens twice a day.
daveinboca
AMANPOUR ON BOTTOM IN DEBUT…
NBC ‘MEET PRESS’ 2,808,000 VIEWERS
CBS ‘FACE’ 2,379,000
ABC ‘THIS WEEK’ 2,211,000
@cmorenc
Maybe Amanpour can do a quick turn-around if she gets Jane Harman, whose husband just bought Newsweek, on her program after having Pelosi on her media-launch. Harman was ranking Democrat on the House Select Committee on Intelligence, but Pelosi intervened in ’06 to put an Hispanic Texan who famously didn’t know the difference between Shi’ites and Sunnis, in as the Chair. Just like the Waxman/Dingell diss. In Harman’s case, it’s because she’s younger, richer, better-educated [Harvard], & better-looking than Botox Nancy and may be the smartest person in Congress.
If Amanpour is really as above politics and into substance as you say, she would get Harman into that fourth seat or as a guest—Jane will be around long after Nancy is history.
Or perhaps, what the Sunday Morning vibe requires is something “cozy” and like that song says “easy like Sunday Morning.” I watch Zakaria who is fairly intense, but has a quick American-tuned wit with sports analogies, etc, whereas Christine is a little too far above the fray.
Allen
I’m in the Post’s subscriber area, and have been one for almost 25 years, so I had no hesitation posting the following comment on his review:
“Hey, it’s Tom Shales, also known as ‘Opposite Man.’ (Or, alternatively, as the worst TV critic in the world.) You can pretty much rely on his opinions to be exactly the opposite of reality.
Remember, Tom is the only critic who liked ‘Kath and Kim’, and look how that turned out. I suspect he was easily moved by Selma Blair’s admittedly skimpy outfits, just like I suspect that Christiane must have turned him down for a date at some point.”
Phoebe
I think Shales has a problem with women, maybe dark, pretty women. Like one of them rejected his pasty ass at one point. He’s so freakishly hostile that it’s the only thing that springs to mind.
Iamhbomb
Are you kidding me? Shales holding up her salary as if it’s some kind of excessive thing? That’s absurd. But I suppose it’s the least absurd thing he wrote.
Howard