Crossposted from MyLeftWing
Over on MLW, the focus of the day has been a diary about “changing the equation”. ;A commenter asks “how”
Here’s one way. Work the Refs!
Don’t let them get away with Making. Shit. Up.
Media Matters catches David Brooks doing just that – by claiming that Clinton (and Reagan) were “in the twenties” in approval rating.
That is patently false! That is demonstrably false! And we should let Brooks , the Newshour , and PBS know we know. Constant pressure on media is one of the ways the right wing extremist gained the disproportionate power they have – we have to stop letting them get away with this crap. My letter and some links below.
Mr. Brooks,
Can you source the claim that both Reagan (the great communicator) and Clinton were “in the 20’s” in approval ratings.
that sir, from the numerous sources I’ve checked, is patently false and, I think deliberately misleading.
Clinton, for example – even as the Starr investigation dragged on – was in the 60’s – (here are two (2) sources
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/opinion081698.htm
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/resources/1998/tracking.poll/
Here’s a chart.
I see no dots in the 20’s, Mr. Brooks. Do you have a source?
Bush on the other hand is in the 30’s and 55% say “if” it’s shown he misled us on WMD’s he should be impeached.
Let me know if you’d like 4 or 5 sources for that data – but I bet you can find it. Further confirmation seems to come out every couple weeks.
Wishing it were otherwise doesn’t make it so any more than wishing we’d be greeted with flowers will bring any of our 2026 plus dead and tens of thousand wounded back to full health.
You, sir, should be deeply ashamed of you role in making this debacle of a presidency possible and you, sir, should apologize to an American public that – after 5 long years, is coming to the realization of just how screw up things are DESPITE you and numerous other members of the oh so “liberal” media making every excuse under the sun for the neo-con power cartel.
In the 20’s you say.
Prove It.
I don’t think you can and I fully expect both verbal and printed retractions of this “misstatement.”
Or do you have no sense of shame? At long last, no decency?
PS
– this rant and refutation has been CC’d to the Newshour – which I’ve watched for years. Sad how you’ve declined over the last 2 or 3. Wonder if Bush’s appointments to the CPB have anything to do with that….
Used to be better than this.
I’ve also submitted this to PBS via the web form.. If they want to know why I’m no longer willing to go to the mat to preserve federal funding, or for that matter send donations – this would be a prime example. How on earth does Brooks get away with this. For that matter – why doesn’t Mr. Shields do more to challenge such a demonstrably false statement. PBS is no longer serving our nation well. Facts matter. Start reporting them and make your opinion folks prove the stuff they spew isn’t just conveniently pulled from their nether regions and I might come back.
Christopher Eshelman
Wichita, KS
Work. The. Refs.
stop the bullshit
I tried wearing my fingers to the bone on polite to ranting emails last year over David Brooks. It seemed that I was sending 5+ emails a week. Finally gave up on NPR and PBS.
That was one battle I got tired of fighting.
we each add straws, as we’re able. Eventually the last straw gets added.
I always get a kick out of reading the letters to the editor in the New York Times a day or two after any given outrageous column (that is to say, almost all of them) by Brooks or his idiot cousin, John Tierney. It’s a rare event to ever see anyone not tear their pieces apart for their factual or logical flaws.
Brooks is obviously of a similar mind to many members of the current administration, whose attitude toward truth is completely indifferent. The phenomenon was described by philosopher Harry Frankfurt in his recent book, “On Bullshit”. As noted in the publisher’s comments, “Rather, bullshitters seek to convey a certain impression of themselves without being concerned about whether anything at all is true. They quietly change the rules governing their end of the conversation so that claims about truth and falsity are irrelevant.” It would be hard to come up with a more accurate description of Brooks.