Good job Drew!

Drew,
It’s Great to see stories on mediaite that are fair. and point out when one side oversteps and misleads.
because of this story you keep me coming back.

@ PureFreedom

I agree, I just found this site about 3 weeks ago. It’s nice to see a site that goes after both sides, the left and the right.

At least they didn’t say “Weiner eviscerates Fox & Friends…

I’d say the Rep did a good job as did Doocy, but when Kilmeade went to the thing about the tie with a minute to go, I had to wonder if his Ritalin was yet to kick-in.

Your review is very good, Magister. While I don’t have high regard for the friends, particularly that awful Gretch, I do think this interview went well. Everyone was mannerly.

The nation’s top Democrats are suddenly rushing to appear on the Fox News Channel, which they once had shunned as enemy territory as the nemesis of liberal bloggers.
The détente with Fox has provoked a backlash from progressive bloggers, who contend the party’s leaders are turning their backs on the base — and lending credibility and legitimacy to the network liberals love to hate — in a quest for a few swing votes.

Markos Moulitsas, founder of the leading liberal site Daily Kos, told Politico’s Michael Calderone: “Democrats are being idiotic by going on that network.”
Ari Melber, the Net movement correspondent for The Nation, told Politico by phone that progressive activists and the Netroots are “not happy about it.”
“I don’t think that it is tenable to completely neglect or ignore what your base wants,” Melber said.”
(Politico May 1, 2008)

“Progressive bloggers”. I love that term. What it really defines are swinish leftists who believe in strict censorship, no debate, no discussion of alternative ideas, and “political freedoms” limited to leftist totalitarians like themselves. Oh wait. We’re about to see that with the Democratic majority in Congress when they use the “nuclear option” to take over the health industry.

Now, Azarkhan, I’m not sure why you elected to dig up a largely discredited Politico piece from almost two (2) years ago, but I think your own commentary paints with a very wide brush. Both sides have sensors, and both side have proponents of the free flow of ideas. For every Koldys, there is a Van Susteren; for every NewsHounds, there is a Mediaite.

I don’t even click if I don’t see “Eviscerates” in the headline.

Real Royal A- “largely discredited Politico piece”

Ahhhh yes, a predictable comment from the pontificating gasbag who never references anything except his own arrogance and condescension.

Royal A, in the future I’ll only be responding to you if I am in a particularly bad mood and want to “eviscerate” your sorry ass in this semi-public forum. Now go back to looking in the mirror and telling yourself how smart you are.

What I’m wondering is what Greta did to cause him to say “For every Koldys, there is a Van Susteren”?

TRRK generally accuses Van Susteren of being a bad lawyer and a bad journalist.

I am unaware that I ever accused Van Susteren of being a bad lawyer, but All the Marys in Heaven know you are never wrong about anything, Cecelia. The Whole Holy Family knows she is a terrible journalist, stalking as she does the Drop Out Governor of Alaska and SOS Clinton and having a redundant, repetitive and derivative pool of sources (Bolton, Gingrich, Morris, Rove, ad nauseum). However, in this instance, I was offering a compliment. Van Susteren, who can certainly be prickly is open to the free expression of ideas and a devotee of the First Amendment.

You’re right, TRRK.

I am never wrong about anything.

BTW– The Not Real Royal King used to routinely compliment Johnny Dollar ( Koldys) for his equanimity when TRRK religiously posted at Koldys’ blog “Johnny Dollar’s Place”.

TRRK’s opinion changed only after Johnny Dollar insisted that TRRK account for writing a detailed analysis based upon an FNC segment YET TO BE AIRED.

Left wing sites such as Huff Post and Daily Kos don’t just bend the truth. They……wait for it…….eviscerate it. Yes!!

Ahhhh yes, a predictable comment from the pontificating gasbag who never references anything except his own arrogance and condescension.

by azarkhan

High five! ;)

Drew, I appreciate that you have pointed us to the whole video segment and reminded us to look critically at all media including media critics such as Media Matters (who are themselves just another layer of the media as well). Also it is clear from the full segment that everyone stayed civil even if pointed at times and they found it possible to talk from opposing points of view while still managing not to get bogged down too much. Still, I have trouble understanding fully your analysis from a media perspective.

Specifically, I can’t agree with your assertion that “when a show ends with the hosts saying ‘That was a great interview!’” that we should assume that it’s a distortion to then highlight one contentious moment where the interviewee rebuked a segment of media for lying about the health care bill. For one thing the assessment of the interviewer is hardly relevant. For another, I think the “great interview” comment was mostly a compliment to the Congressman for managing to shift seamlessly from answering the one-sided questioning to picking up on the playful banter. Let’s face it; most of the interview style and banter come from a canned formula that serves to distract, deflecting criticism, cajole interviewees and so forth.

I would look at the whole clip differently than you, I think. I watched the entire segment and I was struck by just how much of the interview was driven by presumption on the part of the interviewers. The opening line is that “Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, is calling on Democrats to be courageous and support health care despite public opposition.” This lead-in is biased in more than one way. First it implies that Pelosi acknowledges the bill is opposed by the public. I’m fairly certain that Pelosi acknowledged no such thing. There were many Americans who had supported health care reform from the get-go and still wanted something to pass. Many of the people who would have shown up as detractors of the bill now were in fact liberals disappointed that it didn’t do enough. These people don’t really fit into some general characterization expressed as ‘public opposition.’

So the second problem is not just that Pelosi would not acknowledged what the interviewers are saying, but that what the interviewers were saying was really quite wrong. The claim of public opposition is tossed out without any context here, and this is hardly the first time such has been done on Fox. The license for such an assertion is undoubtedly then recent surveys showing a clear but narrow majority opposing the then current bill. The interesting thing here was the sudden affection for surveys, considering that several Fox pundits were happy to dismiss pro-reform stats 6 months prior, and even pro Public Option sentiment from the same period. They sought earnestly to put such statistics into context then. This is clear bias, and not just “tough questions” for the congressman.

My two paragraphs of analysis above cover commentary given before the Congressman even spoke a word. Of course the Congressman then rightly points out that there has been a campaign of lies told about the bill almost from the very beginning. I’d have to say, given the circumstances, his comments were profoundly relevant. Public frustration with the bill was in LARGE measure a function of media distortion and a media failure to inform and promote reasoned discourse. The fact that the admittedly liberal Media Matters highlights this exchange as probably the most relevant moment hardly makes a case for bias on their part.