• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

The cruelty is the point; the law be damned.

Happy indictment week to all who celebrate!

Republicans are the party of chaos and catastrophe.

Let me eat cake. The rest of you could stand to lose some weight, frankly.

Putin must be throwing ketchup at the walls.

When your entire life is steeped in white supremacy, equality feels like discrimination.

Whatever happens next week, the fight doesn’t end.

This fight is for everything.

I know this must be bad for Joe Biden, I just don’t know how.

A snarling mass of vitriolic jackals

An almost top 10,000 blog!

You don’t get rid of your umbrella while it’s still raining.

Bark louder, little dog.

The willow is too close to the house.

Peak wingnut was a lie.

Battle won, war still ongoing.

Teach a man to fish, and he’ll sit in a boat all day drinking beer.

Balloon Juice has never been a refuge for the linguistically delicate.

When I decide to be condescending, you won’t have to dream up a fantasy about it.

I was promised a recession.

Only Democrats have agency, apparently.

Hot air and ill-informed banter

JFC, are there no editors left at that goddamn rag?

Not all heroes wear capes.

Mobile Menu

  • Winnable House Races
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • Balloon Juice 2023 Pet Calendar (coming soon)
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • War in Ukraine
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • 2021-22 Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Contrarian, Wanker and/or Idiot

Contrarian, Wanker and/or Idiot

by $8 blue check mistermix|  September 4, 20122:11 pm| 95 Comments

This post is in: General Stupidity

FacebookTweetEmail

Alessandra Stanley at the Times (via):

You can agree with everything that Rachel Maddow or Ed Schultz say on MSNBC and still oppose their right to say it.

I wonder how far your head has to be stuck up your own ass to write that. And if you’ve ever wondered whether the editors at Times are worth a damn, here’s your answer. That’s the fucking lede of her story – it’s not like they had to dig to find that level of stupidity.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « At The OFA Blogger Briefing
Next Post: A new directive »

Reader Interactions

95Comments

  1. 1.

    Linda Featheringill

    September 4, 2012 at 2:15 pm

    Isn’t that backwards? Isn’t the saying that I disagree with everything you say but defend your right to say it?

  2. 2.

    Xecky Gilchrist

    September 4, 2012 at 2:15 pm

    Wow, it’s the Anti-ACLU! People get annoyed with them for defending the neo-Nazis’ right to spread their hate, whatever they think of the content.

  3. 3.

    KG

    September 4, 2012 at 2:16 pm

    @Linda Featheringill: that was my first thought too… First Amendment, how does it work?

  4. 4.

    MeDrewNotYou

    September 4, 2012 at 2:16 pm

    I’ll bet you $10,000 that a Village outlet that said that about Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh would be bankrupt and scavenged for scraps by the likes of Bain within a week.

  5. 5.

    Some Loser

    September 4, 2012 at 2:16 pm

    I was trying to read this shit, but parts of my brain fell from my ears.

  6. 6.

    trollhattan

    September 4, 2012 at 2:17 pm

    What the fracking frack?!? I have no idea who this person is but she should return to her safe haven beneath the large boulder and forever surrender her keyboard. I oppose her right to a share of the atmosphere.

  7. 7.

    bootsy

    September 4, 2012 at 2:17 pm

    NEWSFLASH: Providing reporting the way Rachel does, which cleanly and calmly punches holes in the moronic-pull-out-your-ass arguments of the talk-radio guys and GOP operatives at Fox, is clearly a moral failing.

    The classy way for the left to win is to let the right win and then sigh disapprovingly.

  8. 8.

    J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford

    September 4, 2012 at 2:18 pm

    That is right up there with “…I don’t want to get wonky on you but we haven’t run the numbers on that specific plan…”

    I thought this was the most remarkable line of the entire campaign so far. A wonk runs the numbers, that’s what they do. A con-artist, on the other hand…

  9. 9.

    Butch

    September 4, 2012 at 2:19 pm

    @Linda Featheringill: My thought also, and coming from someone who should be defending the First Amendment?

  10. 10.

    Ash Can

    September 4, 2012 at 2:19 pm

    Huh?? What???

    That makes no fucking sense whatsoever. Unless the person writing it is actually Vladimir Putin or a Beijing bureaucrat.

  11. 11.

    texpope

    September 4, 2012 at 2:21 pm

    Fox’s “evil twin”?

    In almost all readings of the English language, that would imply that Fox is on the side of the angels.

    This woman needs some remedial comp lit classes before she’s allowed near a word processor again.

  12. 12.

    Chris

    September 4, 2012 at 2:21 pm

    @Linda Featheringill:

    Isn’t that backwards? Isn’t the saying that I disagree with everything you say but defend your right to say it?

    This. That was my first thought too. WTF? Am I missing something here??

  13. 13.

    Violet

    September 4, 2012 at 2:22 pm

    Good lord, that article has it all. Principled Centrist whining, Chuck Todd fluffing, a little flirting with CNN, some Both Sides Do It, shuddering at talk of Lady Business, plus that First Amendment “Who Needs It” cherry on top lede.

    In other words, a gigantic Villager sundae.

  14. 14.

    ruemara

    September 4, 2012 at 2:22 pm

    That’s like stupid went on holiday and allowed drunk moron a go at the keyboards. Let me make a note of the name so I know who not to ever read again.

  15. 15.

    pragmatism

    September 4, 2012 at 2:24 pm

    Another example of satire that no one can tell is satire? Is it prove Poe’s Law day? fucking hell i’m confused.

  16. 16.

    Culture of Truth

    September 4, 2012 at 2:24 pm

    I refuse to click on the link, so my only reaction is “wait, what?”

  17. 17.

    Culture of Truth

    September 4, 2012 at 2:25 pm

    Oh I get it…. it’s raw, unrefined, pure contrarianism, like Mexican Coca-Cola or plutonium.

  18. 18.

    jimmiraybob

    September 4, 2012 at 2:25 pm

    @Linda Featheringill:

    Isn’t that backwards?

    Exactly my first thought. I read it twice at BJ and then had to click through to read it twice again. Bleed through from some bizarre opposite universe I guess. Kinda like “lies are truth” or “selfishness is generosity.”

  19. 19.

    Joseph P.

    September 4, 2012 at 2:26 pm

    I love this line from Staney’s article: “Those anchors who do make dutiful appearances, like David Gregory and Tom Brokaw, are badly needed but don’t stay long or join the fray—like piano players in a brothel, they don’t go upstairs.”

    The piano player is an employee of the brothel. He is there only to provide entertainment. The real action is what is happening upstairs.

    I think this line is especially (but unintentionally) apt for people like Gregory and Brokaw.

  20. 20.

    RSA

    September 4, 2012 at 2:26 pm

    Cool, she’s the (apocryphal) anti-Voltaire.

    Maybe next column she’ll be the anti-Descartes: “I do not think, therefore I am not.”

  21. 21.

    eric

    September 4, 2012 at 2:26 pm

    I look forward to the Times Sunday Magazine and the cover story: “Journalism, the new performance art.”

  22. 22.

    mamayaga

    September 4, 2012 at 2:27 pm

    Wanker, Idiot, or yet another Failed Satirist (won’t get trolled again)?

  23. 23.

    jl

    September 4, 2012 at 2:28 pm

    The premise is BS. MSNBC is NOT foxes evil twin. Schultz irritates me, I think he is blow hard. But he does take care to back up his claims with references and arguments, he takes the time to reason through arguments on both sides. You usually know before hand which side he will come out on, but at least you get an honest serious argument and evidence most of the time.

    And what is with the hating on Maddow? Maddow is not like anything on Fox. Except maybe Shep Smith, sometimes. But Maddow skips Smith’s bigshot anchor schtick, and unfair interview practices that Smith engages in. So, no comparison. Ridiculous comparison.

  24. 24.

    Culture of Truth

    September 4, 2012 at 2:29 pm

    Why not just hire a player piano to do “both sides do it”? Save a fortune.

  25. 25.

    matt

    September 4, 2012 at 2:29 pm

    I oppose Alessandra Stanley’s so-called ‘right’ to say this crap. The dimwitted woman is whining because she imagines that the kind of coverage she doesn’t like is crowding out the ideal coverage she would like. But of course that’s just the moronic conceit of an over-entitled, bubble dwelling imbecile.

  26. 26.

    SiubhanDuinne

    September 4, 2012 at 2:30 pm

    Isn’t Alessandra Stanley the one who made something like seven or eight factual errors in her obit of Cronkite a couple of years ago? And was widely criticized? And just doubled down and kept making more errors in more stories? Why is she still even employed by the NYT??

  27. 27.

    JustRuss

    September 4, 2012 at 2:30 pm

    @Culture of Truth: I admire your restraint, I usually try to do the same. But I agave in. I figured the column couldn’t get worse than that opening sentence. My mistake. Last paragraph sums it up. It’s OK for Gov McDonnell to require women to be vaginally probed, but mocking him for that is bad form. Jeez what a tool.

  28. 28.

    Ash Can

    September 4, 2012 at 2:31 pm

    @Joseph P.:

    “Those anchors who do make dutiful appearances, like David Gregory and Tom Brokaw, are badly needed but don’t stay long or join the fray—-like piano players in a brothel, they don’t go upstairs.”

    Sounds like someone’s been hanging around David Brooks and/or Peggy Noonan too much.

  29. 29.

    Shinobi

    September 4, 2012 at 2:31 pm

    Shorter Moron: IOKIYAR

  30. 30.

    Deb T

    September 4, 2012 at 2:31 pm

    @RSA: @RSA:
    RSA Says:
    Cool, she’s the (apocryphal) anti-Voltaire.
    Maybe next column she’ll be the anti-Descartes: “I do not think, therefore I am not.”

    Good one. Clever and makes me feel more learned than I really am.

  31. 31.

    Violet

    September 4, 2012 at 2:31 pm

    @matt: I don’t oppose her right to say it. I oppose the New York Times paying her to say it.

  32. 32.

    Joseph P.

    September 4, 2012 at 2:31 pm

    I love this line from Stanley’s article: “Those anchors who do make dutiful appearances, like David Gregory and Tom Brokaw, are badly needed but don’t stay long or join the fray—-like piano players in a brothel, they don’t go upstairs.”

    The piano player is an employee of the brothel. He is there only to provide entertainment. The real action is what is happening upstairs.

    I think this line is especially (but unintentionally) apt for people like Gregory and Brokaw.

  33. 33.

    Culture of Truth

    September 4, 2012 at 2:31 pm

    Could one not say thing same thing about A Stanley?

  34. 34.

    MattF

    September 4, 2012 at 2:32 pm

    @Joseph P.: Well. The ‘piano player in a brothel’ is the guy who, when the brothel is raided, claims he doesn’t know what goes on upstairs. I.e., “I just play the piano.” So, Stanley is simply ignorant and/or confused.

  35. 35.

    Cassidy

    September 4, 2012 at 2:32 pm

    @Violet:

    In other words, a gigantic Villager sundae

    Gonna be honest, the dirtire parts of my mind thought you were about to go into a compeltely different direction.

  36. 36.

    jimmiraybob

    September 4, 2012 at 2:32 pm

    @mamayaga:

    Wanker, Idiot, or yet another Failed Satirist (won’t get trolled again)?

    True story. When I first read that, I thought it read Failed Stalinist.

  37. 37.

    James Hare

    September 4, 2012 at 2:33 pm

    Not only is the statement moronic, it’s pretty badly informed. The network that was formerly referred to as MSNBC is now known as NBC News. That was announced in July.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48180815/ns/business-us_business/t/msnbccom-becomes-nbcnewscom/#.UEZJXNaPWSo

  38. 38.

    MoeLarryAndJesus

    September 4, 2012 at 2:33 pm

    Staley’s column before this one was a deep, probing rimjob for Ann Romney:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/29/us/politics/a-revved-up-ann-romney-at-republican-convention-tv-watch.html?ref=alessandrastanley

    Just absurd. I guess she’s looking for a job on “Fox & Friends.”

  39. 39.

    Violet

    September 4, 2012 at 2:36 pm

    @Cassidy: I purposely left it vague. It works no matter how you’re thinking of it. They’re all whores.

  40. 40.

    Culture of Truth

    September 4, 2012 at 2:36 pm

    @JustRuss:
    WaPo:

    Nicki Minaj’s Romney Rap Underscores Obama’s Wobbly Relationship With World of Hip-hop

  41. 41.

    scav

    September 4, 2012 at 2:37 pm

    failed civics, logic and journalism so far. have we tested her on a busy street with no lights and crosswalks or would that be cruel?

  42. 42.

    feebog

    September 4, 2012 at 2:37 pm

    Yes, because when jounalists like Rachel Maddow start pointing out the more obvious Republican lies, it takes all the fun out of the “both sides do it” meme.

  43. 43.

    Dennis SGMM

    September 4, 2012 at 2:37 pm

    @RSA:

    Maybe next column she’ll be the anti-Descartes: “I do not think, therefore I am not.”

    She is trying to avoid what I call the Johann Wolfgang von Goethe Moment. Goethe wrote, “Know thyself? If I knew myself I would run away.”

  44. 44.

    mamayaga

    September 4, 2012 at 2:37 pm

    @jimmiraybob:

    When I first read that, I thought it read Failed Stalinist.

    That works too.

  45. 45.

    Midnight Marauder

    September 4, 2012 at 2:37 pm

    This is the headline.

    How MSNBC Became Fox’s Liberal Evil Twin

    Nope. No need to even start the first word of the article.

    Fucking wow.

  46. 46.

    Auguste

    September 4, 2012 at 2:38 pm

    @RSA: “I do not think, therefore I am an American.”

  47. 47.

    Cassidy

    September 4, 2012 at 2:38 pm

    @Culture of Truth: I think Jay Z, the current king of hip hop, would disagree.

    @Violet: That’s fine. Just the build up and then “Sundae?…huh?”. Thought it was funny.

  48. 48.

    Joel

    September 4, 2012 at 2:38 pm

    From teh Wikipedia:

    Several news and media organizations, including the Times, have criticized the accuracy of Stanley’s reporting.[6][7][8][9][10] Among the articles that they have criticized are a September 5, 2005 piece on Hurricane Katrina,[11] a 2005 article that called the sitcom Everybody Loves Raymond “All About Raymond”,[12] and a July 18, 2009 retrospective on the career of Walter Cronkite that contained eight research and spelling errors.[13] In an August 2009 article examining the mistakes in the Cronkite piece, Clark Hoyt, the Times’s public editor, described Stanley as “much admired by editors for the intellectual heft of her coverage of television” but “with a history of errors”.[14] Then executive editor Bill Keller defended Stanley, saying “She is — in my opinion, among others — a brilliant critic.” [15] In April 2012, Salon contributor Glenn Greenwald described her New York Times review of Julian Assange’s television debut as “revealing, reckless snideness” and “cowardly.”[16]

  49. 49.

    S-Curve

    September 4, 2012 at 2:40 pm

    1) Dimwit can’t see the difference between “oppose their saying it” and “oppose their right to say it.” Again with the tenuous grasp of what “rights” are.

    2) Paul Ryan did not “finesse the facts.” He lied. If you can’t call a lie a lie because comity!, then you want nothing less than to sell out the republic.

    3) First sentence: “says,” goddamnit.

  50. 50.

    Omnes Omnibus

    September 4, 2012 at 2:41 pm

    Ladies and gentlemen, we have finally located the elusive anti-Voltaire.

  51. 51.

    Downpuppy

    September 4, 2012 at 2:41 pm

    @SiubhanDuinne: Why yes.

    And ABC is not exactly a fan of her work either.

    Yes, she has a long & glorious record or ineptitude.

  52. 52.

    pseudonymous in nc

    September 4, 2012 at 2:42 pm

    As a political commentator, Alessandra Stanley is a mediocre TV critic.

  53. 53.

    GxB

    September 4, 2012 at 2:43 pm

    It’s the conservative version of a Yogi Berra. Why not, the fuckers have alternates to all other aspects of reality.

  54. 54.

    Calouste

    September 4, 2012 at 2:44 pm

    @jimmiraybob:

    I think the quotes you are looking for are:
    “War is Peace”, “Freedom is Slavery” and “Ignorance is Strength”.

  55. 55.

    jibeaux

    September 4, 2012 at 2:46 pm

    The entire point of that piece seems to be that shrill people don’t have a right to talk. Until you can find a way to say Both Sides Do It, and say it CIVILLY, Missy, you can just shut up.

    Someone has possibly not adapted too well to the rise of new media.

  56. 56.

    Mino

    September 4, 2012 at 2:46 pm

    Gotta be a sock puppet for Andrea Mitchel.

  57. 57.

    cckids

    September 4, 2012 at 2:48 pm

    @MoeLarryAndJesus:

    I guess she’s looking for a job on “Fox & Friends.”

    I don’t know, is she blonde enough?

  58. 58.

    Downpuppy

    September 4, 2012 at 2:49 pm

    @James Hare: Nah, MSNBC is still the cable network. They’re just rearranging the digital side to separate MSNBC & NBC News as Microsoft gets out & Comcast takes over.

    They may split the TeeVee part more in the future.

  59. 59.

    Culture of Truth

    September 4, 2012 at 2:49 pm

    Oh the howls of outrage if a liberal paper called for Rush Limbaugh to banned.

  60. 60.

    cdmarine

    September 4, 2012 at 2:51 pm

    Silly bloggers. Don’t you know that truth just doesn’t matter anymore?

  61. 61.

    Studly Pantload, the emotionally unavailable unicorn

    September 4, 2012 at 2:54 pm

    So, this lass’s snark detector (snarkdar?) is finely tuned enough, but her factdar is on the fritz because it’s thoroughly jammed up her tuckus? I’d say that’s my takewawy.

  62. 62.

    Marc

    September 4, 2012 at 2:58 pm

    Her fawning coverage of Ann Romney tells you what you need to know about her. No boring discussion of facts, or even a technical analysis of whether her speech “worked” or not. It came across as something that would fit seamlessly in Tiger Beat or a fan blog.

    Like Frank Bruni, she should stick to being a critic (TV in her case, food in his.) They differ only in the way that they embarrass the Times in their current roles.

  63. 63.

    Bill E Pilgrim

    September 4, 2012 at 3:01 pm

    So, doesn’t MSNBC still have three hours every day hosted by a right-wing Republican former member of Congress?

    Unless things have changed since I last watched it, three hours of conservative punditry is as much as they have of the more liberal-leaning shows later in the day, isn’t it?

    That means that MSNBC is actually balanced equally between left and right, something no one except pundits on Fox itself would ever pretend that Fox is.

    Correct me if I’m wrong, I don’t get MSNBC and just see clips now and then, these days.

  64. 64.

    Kilks

    September 4, 2012 at 3:01 pm

    My favorite part is the quote by Melissa Harris-Perry. Its supposed to be an example of how terrible MSNBC is, but its in fact hilarious and spot on.

    There’s more truth in that one quote than in 3 hours of CNN centrist crap.

  65. 65.

    Publius39

    September 4, 2012 at 3:05 pm

    She went full retard with that statement.

  66. 66.

    Keith G

    September 4, 2012 at 3:05 pm

    @bootsy: Sometimes Rachel does reporting. Sometime she goes off on a show-starting Rachel rant (or a monologue, if you wish) that provides no new information and actually can be embarrassingly off the mark.

    Last night her point was that Obama sold labor down the river with the Charlotte decision. In her world labor in insulted and there may well be consequences.

    In interviews I have seen though out the weekend where labor officials were actually present, it was clear her premise is wrong…wrong… wrong. To shore up her view she interviewed…… another MSNBC face. She could not find a rep from labor? In Charlotte this weekend? Just a few questions and she might have encountered the truth.

    WTF?

    Stanley’s piece is idiotic, but that does mean that on occasion Maddow doesn’t have her head up her ass

  67. 67.

    PurpleGirl

    September 4, 2012 at 3:05 pm

    @Auguste: Better:

    I’m a Republican American, therefore I do not think.

  68. 68.

    Publius39

    September 4, 2012 at 3:10 pm

    The First Amendment: you’re doing it wrong.

  69. 69.

    Tom Q

    September 4, 2012 at 3:14 pm

    @Keith G: There are lots of ways in which I don’t care for Maddow, but I think it’s pretty obvious that for Stanley (and I base this on her pieces over the years, not just this), the issue is that Maddow and Schultz are just too ickily Democratic/liberal. You can be over-the-top Republican or (best) full-on “both sides” and be widely revered in the Village. But be a forthright Democrat, and you have cooties.

  70. 70.

    Ann Rynd

    September 4, 2012 at 3:15 pm

    Alessandra, Modo, Frank Bruni, Michiko Kakutani, the mean girl cabal at the times. Rachel is not interested in hanging with them. They are tight with Gregory. Don’t like that the zeitgiest is twisting her way and will cost Gregory his job.
    Dont ask me how I know this.
    (Pulls veil over face) Say no more.

  71. 71.

    Publius39

    September 4, 2012 at 3:23 pm

    @Kilks:

    My favorite part is the quote by Melissa Harris-Perry. Its supposed to be an example of how terrible MSNBC is, but its in fact hilarious and spot on.

    There’s more truth in that one quote than in 3 hours of CNN centrist crap.

    You have got to be fuckin kidding me. Telling the truth about the hazards of being poor in America is now supposed to be equivalent to the trickle-down propaganda on Faux? You have got to be kidding me! Are their any logic professors here, because this goes beyond a mere false-equivalence fallacy! I need something stronger than a facepalm to express my reaction to this hack’s bullshit.

    Reply

  72. 72.

    Publius39

    September 4, 2012 at 3:23 pm

    @Kilks:

    My favorite part is the quote by Melissa Harris-Perry. Its supposed to be an example of how terrible MSNBC is, but its in fact hilarious and spot on.

    There’s more truth in that one quote than in 3 hours of CNN centrist crap.

    You have got to be fuckin kidding me. Telling the truth about the hazards of being poor in America is now supposed to be equivalent to the trickle-down propaganda on Faux? You have got to be kidding me! Are their any logic professors here, because this goes beyond a mere false-equivalence fallacy! I need something stronger than a facepalm to express my reaction to this hack’s bullshit.

    Reply

  73. 73.

    gogol's wife

    September 4, 2012 at 3:28 pm

    @Joel:

    I don’t have time to read this thread, but I was sure someone would point to her fabulous Cronkite article. She should have been fired ages ago. I don’t know whose relative she is. Her name isn’t Sulzberger, but there must be some connection keeping her employed.

  74. 74.

    Balconesfault

    September 4, 2012 at 3:39 pm

    @Joseph P.: Bravo!

  75. 75.

    Ruckus

    September 4, 2012 at 3:45 pm

    @MattF:
    So, Stanley is simply ignorant and/or confused.

    Not simply ignorant, massively fucking ignorant.
    Confused? No, confused is when you mix up a couple of names of people you haven’t seen for 10 years. Dazed and confused is what happens when you are stoned. She is so far beyond confused that the word is just not appropriate. The correct description is fucking evil.
    To FXIT:
    So, Stanley is massively fucking ignorant and evil.

  76. 76.

    NancyDarling

    September 4, 2012 at 3:46 pm

    Fox News doesn’t have a network news division…

    This first line from paragraph #7 has me confused. I thought Fox News was network news. She goes on to say because they don’t have said division, they are free to be as partisan as they want to be. What am I missing?

  77. 77.

    Gloryb

    September 4, 2012 at 3:47 pm

    In my neighborhood, we call the fact that this person has so high paying and influential a job as “rich white kid affirmative action.”

    See, also, “Willie Geist”

  78. 78.

    Anna in PDX

    September 4, 2012 at 3:51 pm

    @RSA: I was waiting for someone to say, yes, it’s reverse of Voltaire. Sooooooo weird! From a journalist yet. Don’t they have to read ANYTHING in college? do they only read newspaper articles from 1970s Pravda?

  79. 79.

    Catsy

    September 4, 2012 at 3:56 pm

    You can agree with everything that Rachel Maddow or Ed Schultz say on MSNBC and still oppose their right to say it.

    …or you can acknowledge that we have a First Amendment and believe in the principles behind it. But they are mutually exclusive propositions.

    Stanley has clearly made her choice.

  80. 80.

    Amir Khalid

    September 4, 2012 at 3:58 pm

    You can agree with everything that Rachel Maddow or Ed Schultz say on MSNBC and still oppose their right to say it.

    To oppose a person’s right to express their opinion is to oppose freedom of speech itself: an absurd position for a journalist, because that freedom is what makes her own work possible in the first place. Nothing you say further to that can make sense. Denying another person’s right to say things you happen to agree with, merely because you don’t like their tone, sounds particularly absurd.

    And I see scare quotes around Republican “lies” in the second para. These lies have been widely and repeatedly exposed, even on Fox News. Is Stanley not aware of that?

  81. 81.

    marina

    September 4, 2012 at 4:03 pm

    Re: “Her name isn’t Sulzberger, but there must be some connection keeping her employed,” I don’t remember where I read this, but Stanley is BFF with Times head honcho Jill Abramson (you remember, the one who wrote in her book “The Puppy Diaries” about feeding her ailing dog ‘rosemary-dusted’ chicken, and who stated that the Times needed to be ‘more intuned-ness” with Fox viewers). Stanley is also close buds with MoDo. I stopped reading Stanley after she wrote in the Times in 2000 that the Swift Boat movie on John Kerry should be “required viewing” for the entire country. I did read a piece she wrote for the travel section sometime in recent memory, in which she spent most of the article complaining about not having access to alcoholic beverages…

    P.S. I’m all for feeding pets whatever it takes to get them to eat. It was the rosemary dusting that somehow just got to me…

  82. 82.

    Suffern ACE

    September 4, 2012 at 4:04 pm

    @NancyDarling: Fox news is a News Network. Fox, TV channel that runs the Simpsons, has local news affiliates. It’s network of local broadcast affiliates are not required to send Fox News over the airwaves as part of their contract with Fox. I see the distinction she is trying to make between cable and broadcast, but it doesn’t make any sense in the argument she is trying to make.

    If there is an argument she is trying to make. Unless it’s that the fairness document needs to be applied to MSNBC because NBC broadcasts other news over the airwaves someplace else and there isn’t a distinction between MSNBC and the NBC Nightly News teams.

  83. 83.

    Ed Drone

    September 4, 2012 at 4:09 pm

    @Ruckus:

    Dazed and confused is what happens when you are stoned. She is so far beyond confused that the word is just not appropriate.

    If so, I don’t want to smoke, chug, inject, or come into contact with whatever she’s having.

    Just say, “No!”

    Ed

  84. 84.

    gogol's wife

    September 4, 2012 at 4:34 pm

    @marina:

    Ah yes, I forgot about the Abramson connection. And yes, the vacation article was disgusting. She was completely obsessed with cocktails. My fave was her article analyzing Russian television in depth. I wrote to the editor asking what her Russian-language credentials are, because there was no co-reporter listed. Somebody had to have fed her summaries of the programming, unless her Russian is a lot better than she’s ever given any hint of. I received no answer, but her series on TV around the globe doesn’t seem to have had any more installments.

  85. 85.

    Patricia Kayden

    September 4, 2012 at 4:35 pm

    Read the entire article. My eyes practically rolled out of their sockets and left the house.

    Silly article. Just shows that MSNBC is getting under the skins of the spineless and useless “journalists”.

  86. 86.

    piratedan

    September 4, 2012 at 4:48 pm

    @Joel: my politically incorrect and possibly callous psuedo-Republican take on that wiki sampling….. “She’s got a nice rack AND she puts out and that’s why we keep her around, occasionally we even let her write something”.

  87. 87.

    Forsetti

    September 4, 2012 at 4:48 pm

    So the Times doesn’t have the cajones to ask probing questions, do research, call an outright fabrication for what it is…but MSNBC is the problem. Rachel is doing what good journalists should, the Times is upset because it makes them look second rate hacks so instead of stepping up their game, they feel the need to criticize those playing in The Show.

  88. 88.

    catclub

    September 4, 2012 at 4:51 pm

    @Amir Khalid: It was stupid article, but most of the posters here have been purposely misinterpreting the opening sentence, just because they can.

    It put badly the idea that MSNBC is getting too political and opinionated, to which the author objects. No mention of disliking FOX for being too political and opinionated.

    Presumably she never watches FOX (hence no objections), but previously had enjoyed getting fluff from MSNBC.

  89. 89.

    The Populist

    September 4, 2012 at 5:07 pm

    @Ash Can: No, it has to be Sarah Palin using a nom de plume.

  90. 90.

    humbert dinglepencker

    September 4, 2012 at 5:48 pm

    Further proof that the much-vaunted NYT isn’t worthy to line the bottom of a bird cage.

  91. 91.

    tofubo

    September 4, 2012 at 5:59 pm

    Alessandra Stanley has the right to say whatever she wants and i will defend my right to sit quietly by whilst others ridicule her to shreds for saying one of the stupidest things ever put to print (until the next NRO update…)

  92. 92.

    Alan

    September 4, 2012 at 6:01 pm

    Just some of the most horrid writing I’ve seen in a newspaper recently. Really, there are people who don’t think Maddow and Schultz have the “right” to say those things? I think what she meant is that you can agree with their opinions and still think that a news anchor, at least one who is anchoring convention coverage, should play it straight. I don’t find that a persuasive opinion, anyway, but why would she pick the word “right?” Wasn’t there an editor who asked, is this really what you mean, that they have no right to say those things? Also,what the heck is “informed commentary without a twist of bias?”

  93. 93.

    Alan

    September 4, 2012 at 6:04 pm

    @catclub: I think her shoddy word choice opens her up to that interpretation. There’s really no excuse in an A section story in the New York Times to write something as sloppy as that.

  94. 94.

    Xantar

    September 4, 2012 at 6:35 pm

    @gogol’s wife:

    My fave was her article analyzing Russian television in depth. I wrote to the editor asking what her Russian-language credentials are, because there was no co-reporter listed. Somebody had to have fed her summaries of the programming, unless her Russian is a lot better than she’s ever given any hint of. I received no answer, but her series on TV around the globe doesn’t seem to have had any more installments.

    To be fair, she was once the co-chief of the New York Times Moscow bureau. On the other hand, I don’t know how you go from being a foreign correspondent to a TV critic.

    She’s also the daughter of some defense expert who is apparently famous in that community, so I wonder if that might also explain her continued employment at the Times.

  95. 95.

    Redleg

    September 4, 2012 at 11:46 pm

    The writer doesn’t even manage to get around to reporting whether the statements by MSNBC pundits are based on truth or not or whether Romney, Ryan, and the rest of the Rethuglican brood having been lying out of their foul asses. Nice reporting there, toots.

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

Fundraising 2023-24

Wis*Dems Supreme Court + SD-8

Recent Comments

  • brendancalling on No Cake for Me Today Open Thread (Mar 23, 2023 @ 7:43pm)
  • Another Scott on No Cake for Me Today Open Thread (Mar 23, 2023 @ 7:42pm)
  • Uncle Cosmo on No Cake for Me Today Open Thread (Mar 23, 2023 @ 7:40pm)
  • Jeffro on No Cake for Me Today Open Thread (Mar 23, 2023 @ 7:39pm)
  • Manyakitty on No Cake for Me Today Open Thread (Mar 23, 2023 @ 7:39pm)

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
We All Need A Little Kindness
Classified Documents: A Primer
State & Local Elections Discussion

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)

Twitter / Spoutible

Balloon Juice (Spoutible)
WaterGirl (Spoutible)
TaMara (Spoutible)
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
TaMara
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
ActualCitizensUnited

Join the Fight!

Join the Fight Signup Form
All Join the Fight Posts

Balloon Juice Events

5/14  The Apocalypse
5/20  Home Away from Home
5/29  We’re Back, Baby
7/21  Merging!

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2023 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!