posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 06:08 PM
Originally posted by speculativeoptimist
I think the substance is more important than the editing, and she was trying to defend herself against a claim from the book.
Editing is one thing, however, in this case her argument is the quintessential straw man. His book addressed a completely different segment on a
completely different subject, than the one she played back to him, in order to portray to her viewers that she was a victim. Either her researchers
did a terrible job of preparing her for "her defense" or she is being totally disingenuous. Either way, being the host of the show, the fault lies
The truth is I'm no fan of Inhofe. I think he is a pompous ass as well. But, as long as we allow the pundits to act like Maddow did here, then the
truth becomes ever more elusive, to the vast majority of the populace. And, even though that is the agenda, The People who know better are responsible
for exposing it to the rest.
I can understand pre-existing animosity for a pundit too though, I fell the same away about Hannity.
In some cases this is true, unless the listener/viewer is capable of objectively and honestly evaluating the pundit's claims and/or positions to
discern fact from rhetoric. Though, in the past, I couldn't stand to listen to Hannity, because of his continuous whining about "well, the left did
this/that to us", he has let up on that somewhat and is at least bearable. However, now that the election cycle is in full swing, he has been using
that tactic more frequently. It's one thing to expose hypocrisy, but he's too over the tope with it, for my taste.
The difference though, imo, is Maddow would smoke most pundits from the right in a debate.
I'd take that bet, but I suppose determining the winner would be impossible.