Blitzer being a pretend journalist

Blitzer appearing to be neutral is a stunt, just another republican asshat.

Unfair

Same program, same day, same Blitzer > "In those heady days after the toppling of Saddam Hussein, did the United States miss a monumental opportunity to head off tensions with Iran? There is word that the Bush administration actually snubbed an Iranian offer of some concessions. Let's turn to CNN's Brian Todd............."

*********************

Charging Blitzer with being some Republican "asshat", (whatever that is?) is unfair, what is also unfair is to cherry pick some statement of his and then conclude or label him with bias, unfounded.

He is not suggesting anything, he may be questioning their motives - but so what? I question Congress' motives and political posturing all the time, we all should.

A-hat

Asshat: one whose head is so far up his ass, he is wearing it as a hat.

Oh.....

Gracias, I get it.

Tommy!

the point is why would Spritzer even SAY the word 'stunt'? What facts of ANY does he have to SUGGEST the first 100 hours are a stunt? And don't say 'because he said some are saying...'- that schtick is worn out...my four year old asks why the moon is following our car, but I don't use that to actually question or inquire WHY the moon is following us because it isn't....much the same for Spritzer who has NO basis to label the first 100 hours as a stunt...

And, by the way, by SAYING those words, he IS suggesting it's a stunt and people hear it and repeat it...It's how stupid rumors get started...

Mr L.

Most likely because these are the terms that fuel these talk/cable networks - they are lightning rods, buzzwords, what have you. They look saucy and provocative on a screen and hopefully, from their standpoint, generate some level of interest in those flipping channels back and forth who may stay there and see what the "stunt" is all about........but who really knows?

But all in all it's rather harmless.

Harmless?

Tommy, please don't be disingenuous, it's beneath you.

There have been numerous threads about the "some say" trope and the "Cavuto question mark..." it's a way of creating a false debate where none exists to discredit a point of view. It's a cheap trick, and it deserves a response.

If it was used to dishonestly frame a debate against something you felt strongly about, I suspect you would react differently.

Val

It may be harmful to you - your opinion, it is harmless to me - no matter who the target of a question mark is. There is nothing disingenuous about it, so your accusation is unfounded.

After the commercial break...

Next on MMfA:Is Tommy being disingenuous? Some say he's a genuine idiot. Stay tuned!

You can't feel insulted, Tommy...it's harmless, remember?

No insult

Absolutely harmless......one couldn't feel insulted by a gnat who flutters around for no reason.

No purpose?

On the contrary, my purpose is clear; to show the silliness of your argument. To be fair, you did most of the work yourself.

Nope

Blitzer is supposed to be an anchorman. a neutral reporter, not one who shades the reportage with his bias. His job is not to generate interest but to report the news in as unbiased a way as is possible.

I agree

You're right Tommy. Blitzer was merely asking a question here. He wasn't suggesting anything. Blitzer very seldom gives his own opinion on anything. He usually just asks tough questions.

After the commercial break...

"9/11:Terrorist plot, or Bush's brainchild? Some people say it's all part of a neocon plot! Stay tuned..."

What's the difference? Just asking "tough questions", right?

It sure sounded like a suggestion!

I respectfully ask why you don't think Blitzer's asking if it was just a stunt wasn't suggesting to listeners that it was just a stunt?

Are you a moron? A pedophile? A toe fetishist?

Of course I'm "merely asking a question here. [I] wasn't suggesting anything."

I can see the headlines in the coming months from MM....

'The 110th Democratic Congress made a huge SHOW in their first 100 hours by passing a FEW measures, but as time has shown, even those were bogged down in the Senate because of concerns over blah blah blah...'

or, 'While the democrats BLUSTERED about in the first 100 hours, nothing of substance was REALLY done...'

damn, this could be like a Mad Lib game...

Stunt as a word

He is not suggesting anything, he may be questioning their motives - but so what? I question Congress' motives and political posturing all the time, we all should.

Why use the word stunt? It suggests that Democrats are doing it for show. It was one of the campaign promises made during the recent election and the Democrats delivered. Oh, and if you have to ask what an asshat is there is a possibility you are one.

Typical

Blitzer is a known GOP shill and serial Bush suck-up.

wolfman runs with the pack

Rather than see the "100 hours" thing questioned rhetorically by the on-screen graphic:

"Success or Stunt?"

I'd have preferred:

"100 Hour Agenda or Contract With America: Which was the Bigger Stunt?"

And as usual, such a sweeping and idiotic generalization as the "stunt" characterization is, doesn't even attempt to look at the only thing that really matters in the issue: The particular Resolutions passed.

Because of course, it's much easier to make a broad and sweeping generalization, than to make an accurate and detailed assessment of the particulars...

...it's just such generalizations as that, that practically defines what an idiot is.

I just wonder

Given the current climate, if positions were reversed and it was the Republicans riding in on this change in congress would the same type of language be used to describe their initial work?

I know, a hypothetical question.....

My guess........

......would be yes. It goes more to creating little controversies and hot button words to summarize things, than any ideological bent either way.

Also

In the age of high powered, never ending graphics on TV these days, it just looks better. If it said "Success or not so successful" would look boring and snoozy. To put out there "Success or Stunt" surrounded by loud annoying video game like graphics is more palatable to most, I imagine.

If you watch the NFL or other major sports on networks these days, for me anyway, it is incredibly irritating. Constant silly in-your-face splashy ear-splitting graphics.........I usually listen to radio.

I would go with

"Success or Failure..." this is a reasonable question, and could be investigated factually. There is no way to prove or disprove whether something is a stunt: were the stated goals accomplished? Were substantive measures passed, or just symbolic gestures? That would be information the public could use, not this gossipy tripe.

Well, I don't like Wolfe, but

It looks as if his phraseology is fair.

See: [link to thespisjournal.wordpress.com] or [link to www.fireflyfans.net] (search for stunt)

[link to www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com]

[link to www.dccc.org]

[link to newsbuckit.blogspot.com]

or google your own "100 hours" and "stunt."

personally, who cares if it was a stunt?

They still got more done in 42 hours than the republicans did in 6 years!

Well said,

but that isn't saying much!

Bash Blitzer…Bushed

Scud Stud’s Stunt…Dud

Wolfie...

...explain how passing these bills was a "stunt".

Please, pull your head out of your @#$ before doing so in order that we might understand you clearly.

Thanks.

I'm thinking that the gist is

that if you make an announcement like this and lack the ability to carry it through, it is designed to gather favorable publicity and attention, it's a stunt, but if you really implement the agenda, it's a success. With the rightwing bloggers screaming "stunt," I don't think we can assault Wolfe on this one. Who cares? He leaves plenty to criticize on many other fronts.

I care

"With the rightwing bloggers screaming "stunt," I don't think we can assault Wolfe on this one. Who cares?"

Sure we can. Rightwing bloggers scream all sorts of nonsense, how can you imagine that justifies the same nonsense on a supposedly respectable news network?

The strategy of the "first 100" program is very intelligent. Even before this Congress started, right-wingers were suggesting that it was a failure. You have to imagine they want to talk about how Dems are not accomplishing anything. So enacting this much in this little time is the perfect thing to do. All the "stunt" BS is an obvious effort to neutralize that effort. Don't buy it.

..

Well, if implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission is a stunt, I want to know what it was the Republicans were doing. Was it negligence? Suicidal?

Definition of Stunt

stunt 2 |st?nt| |st?nt| noun an action displaying spectacular skill and daring.

So, going with that definition, was it a stunt? Can you imagine Wolf saying, "Was it a stunt? What I mean is was it spectacularly skillful and daring?" That is what he meant , isn't it? LOL

Woohoo!!

Go Democrats! Don't stop the war! Don't impeach Bush! Keep Guantanamo open!...but hey, we poor get a boost in pay to still-poverty levels from people who make $150,000 a year and doctors get to do more stem cell research! Wow! What a difference they have made! They're so revolutionary! They've changed our society .00001% to the better! Yay!

Sarcasm mode over.

It is a stunt. The legislation enacted is NOT anything substantial at all. It does NOTHING to solve the massive problems we have in this nation. Of course all the little Demmies will tell me "But they just came into power!"...but two years from now, nothing will have changed and they will all be busy defending DLC champion right-winger Clinton versus whomever the Repubs decide to run against her and the nation will have continued to progressively spiral into a secret police state built on plutocratic lines.