catwho the Mundane wrote:
He's the modern equivalent of the muckraker from the earliest part of the 19th century. He makes money by overdramatizing uncomfortable half-truths.
I don't hate him, but I don't particularly like him much either. He doesn't present the full picture. The issues he tackles are complicated, but he has to cram them into a 2 hour pity party documentary that he tries to make entertaining as well, which leaves a lot of voices silent.
I think liberals worry too much about being balanced against conservative pundits that aren't balanced at all. We end up looking like douchebags. What we need are liberal entertainers who don't give a sh*t about conservatives getting their two cents in for their often obscure and unpopular beliefs (like around decrying global warming and denying evolution) because we want them to feel special. Then we have the liberal and centrist democratic politicians and writers (who are the majority of the democratic party) being more balanced with the republicans that are more balanced and thoughtful.
Also, being balanced is overrated. Bill Maher isn't balanced and I find his show totally entertaining.
All you @#%^ers listen to too much NPR. There is a place for McNeil/Lehrer--which I'll watch, but the trouble is when you make it the equivalent of Fox News or @#%^ punditry, which is totally different. We need Michael Moore to deal with the Sean Hannitys of the world so the real journalists don't have to get their hands dirty with that *********
Edited, Jul 10th 2009 12:40pm by Annabella