Gloria Borger
I can't refrain: I just watched Gloria Borger of CBS using public broadcasting television to criticize Al Gore as the "zen master of coy" because he won't tell her that there are no circumstances under which he would run for President. Gwen Ifill joined in taking potshots. This by the way at the author of the number one book on NYT non fiction best seller list. When that place is held by one of the media none dare do anything but fawn over their colleague, consumed by envy though they may be. But in this case, they know or care nothing about "Assault" and so they go, as always they have done, at the person not the principle, the messenger not the message.
Ms. Ifill and Ms. Borger agreed Mr. Gore was "just selling books." Hello, folks: by selling this book he's trying to get a message to the American people that they have no chance in the world of hearing from either of you, which is that our ability to reach reasoned conclusions and take intelligent action is fatally compromised by, among others, you! I can understand why you would be chagrined by this message, but why don't you feel some duty at least to report it?
But perhaps most indicative of the way that the "Assault" is every day proved valid was Ms. Borger's reference to an anonymous political consultant who told her that Democratic voters really didn't want Mr. Gore to run for President. Here's what she didn't say: the name of the person, the campaign the person is advising, the campaigns the person had previously advised, whether or not the person had previously advised or not been hired to advise Mr. Gore. All these issues of motive were relevant, none disclosed and perhaps none explored by her. Yet she nattered on, proving the validity of "Assault" and making her minor, yet telling, contribution to the decline of the Republic.
Oh C'mon Reed... I'd LOVE for Gore to run for president.
But having a NYT bestselling book does NOT put a person above question.
These observations might be wrong, but they're legitimate.
Nobody did anything wrong here except pick on a guy that you like. Andc, Hell, I like him too. But when it comes to free expression, I don't care whose ox is gored.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
June 1, 2007 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I've gotta agree with Reed here. I once liked Borger but she's joined those who figure a good snark is the equivalent of a good report.
From time to time I stick up for places like IA and NH holding a place in our election process precisely because they force candidates and the press to get beyond the way too cool and way too cynical beltway. Ifill's problem is that (except when it comes to herself, i.e., Imus) she's way too cool and too detached.
As to Gore, he not going to do it making the rounds of the pundits. He's become a truth teller but is he the messenger who can tell it? But if not him, who?
June 1, 2007 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, let's see. The campaign consultant who pulled out of his/her rear-end the idea that Democrats don't want Gore to run was likely from among the usual suspects:
Dick Morris
Bob Shrum
James Carville
Joe Trippi (committed to Edwards)
Any other guesses?
June 1, 2007 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Her job is to avoid discussing substance and to focus on the horse race, with such ready-made gems as whether a Clinton or a black (or on the positive side, a determined woman and an inspiring whatever) can carry America. Gore doesn't fit her agenda as lazy reporter, so of course she's annoyed. That's not to put down Clinton and Obama (or Edwards, who to people like her is no doubt invisible). It's just that we're up against the likes of her.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
June 1, 2007 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you had a party and a person was talking like Borger and Ifill my guess is that you would write them off as a loud mouth idiot. Why then would you voluntarily subject yourself to them and waste your precious time? I haven't watched a talking heads show in over a decade and I can assure you that I do not feel in the least deprived.
My hope is that Gore runs and tells the media that he is not going to have a media plane or give them free rides, but they are welcome to fly commercial to watch him give speeches. Then, when he gets elected, he shuts down the media room at the White House and blogs every day about what he is doing and why he is doing it.
Mrgavel
June 1, 2007 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Remind me again of the reason we are supposed to care about the financial well-being of public broadcasting? So we can listen to Gwen Awful nightly and feel superior to those listening to Brokaw?
June 1, 2007 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
What do you expect? Gore says the media has no clothes and so of course they are ridiculing him. After all, that's easier than actually trying to be responsible and effective journalists.
Why is TPM and the TPM franchise so popular? Because it's real journalism breaking stories that matter. There's no talk about Britney, Anna Nicole and all the other b-list celebs. It also doesn't criticize people because of their clothes or hair style but because of their positions on issues, their incompetence or their corruption.
June 1, 2007 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
"These observations might be wrong, but they're legitimate."
"Wrong" _AND_ "legitimate"?
Let's not attack the messenger, 'kay? -- that would be wrong. Let's talk instead about "earth tones".
June 1, 2007 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
So what did you think of Gore's book? What do you think of his thesis?
Hello?
June 2, 2007 12:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Add Borger's piece to the list of shoddy, cynical "journalism".
Not to be discounted is that journalists faced with a deadline sometimes simply do not have anything fresh or remotely interesting to say. The well goes dry. Resorting to inane speculation about the motivations and presidential political significance of visible acts of those deemed potential presidential candidates is a tried and true fallback, unlikely to be singled out for attention because it is so common.
Borger happened to get busted by you. But that is the exception, not the norm.
It seems to be beyond the possibility of some journalists to imagine that there actually are serious public figures with serious things they want to say, things that are not being said nearly often or well enough in publicly visible ways, and that writing a book is one of the means available to say them.
June 2, 2007 2:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
MSM is an echo chamber only a limited point of view is allowed. Joe Klein ca tell Joe Scarborough of MSNBC a story of man a at campaign rally who supported the war because Saddam Hussein took down the towers in NYC. Klein went on to say that the man believed this because "certain" individuals put out this false implication. Klein never addressed the role of MSM stenography. Scarborough will not counter Klein's message.
Pseudo-psychologist Bay Buchanan analyzes Sen Clinton. A reporter who left his pregnant wife for another woman writes a HRC tome. He is followed by another in his deconstruction of Hillary by two other reporters. One of the duo has had his reporting technique questioned. The past history of the Hillary Clinton books will never have their own pasts critiqued on the MSM shows where they hawk their wares.
Because of the echo-chamber nature of the news media, when reporters discuss information with each other, there is a reduction to the norm. The reporters come to believe and say the same things because their is no opposing point of view.
Mitt Romney has told obvious prevarications, but has not been tagged with the liar label that Gore carried. The media are trying to give the country another GOP POTUS.
June 2, 2007 7:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gore has been and still is the main stream media's punching bag, and as such they gave us Bush as President instead of Gore. Rather than address Gore's book or his speeches they react to him in the classic Margaret Carlson way when she told IMUS;
"Gore’s fabrications may be inconsequential—I mean, they’re about his life. Bush’s fabrications are about our life, and what he’s going to do. Bush’s should matter more but they don’t, because Gore’s we can disprove right here and now…You can actually disprove some of what Bush is saying if you really get in the weeds and get out your calculator or you look at his record in Texas. But it’s really easy, and it’s fun, to disprove Gore."
People like Carlson, Borger, Ifill (who had Condi over to the house to enjoy a home cooked meal), Bob Woodward and Judith Miller represent a media market that long ago concluded having access to power is more important than speaking truth to it.
If the shoe were on the other foot the right wing zanies would be pointing to this Borger/Ifill incident as proof positive that PBS is part of "the liberal media."
June 2, 2007 7:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, how does Borger and Ifill differentiate between Gore's 'just selling books' and, oh.....other authors like
Walter Isaacson, Christopher Hitchens, or
Michael Beschloss and what they do?
June 2, 2007 8:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
At least we know the members of the pundit class who are doing poorly economically, who are in the bottom half of the income range, will concentrate on substance and not their own prejudices about politicians. Those members of the media are still like the bulk of us. It's just a good thing that they have their TV talking heads shows too.
Let me get out my TV Guide and find one of those shows to watch this weekend. Hmmmmm.
Hoppy in Sacramento
June 2, 2007 8:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is this the same CBS that looked to burnish its News operation by hiring Katie Couric? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you!
Actually not, because anybody who's been paying attention to their 'highbrow' news magazine 60 Minutes can see this not-so-subtle editorial shift in their position--it's the difference between the treatment that Gore or Elizabeth Edwards gets, versus, say, Condoleeza Rice.
It's a sad decline for a once-proud news operation, like an aging burlesque dancer forced to go 'xxx' because the goods are no longer there...
June 2, 2007 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gwen Ifill has been a straight Republican talking head for a long time. It's always astonished me that Dems have so much patience with her. She's not bright, not hard-working, and not honest. A classic example of PBS's useless kowtowing to the right wing, which is as wasted as McCain's shameless pandering.
As for Borger, she works for US News and World Report. What more is there to say? She just vomits up what the corporate ownwership wants to hear.
None of this, however, makes Gore a viable candidate. A fine fellow, an excellent administrator, and a terrible politician. He's a certain loser who has already waged the worst Democratic campaign for the presidency in a hundred years. He doen't deserve a chance at breaking his own record.
June 2, 2007 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't forget LONGTOM that Gore actually WON the first election, although I agree that he could have been a better campaigner....a little more type A.
I have watched Washington Week for years and mostly gotten pretty good information from it even though I am left of center. However, I was offended by Borger and even Gwen with their "inside the Beltway" snarks, head-nods and grins about some of the candidates especially Gore. It was unnecessary to paint him as a guy just selling books. He's probably not my candidate but he has contributed much to our country. All I need is some facts and a little well informed opinion from Washington Week. Tell me what about his book that makes you all so condescending, ladies!! Could it be about you?
June 2, 2007 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was watching that, and when Borger said "Zen master of coy" I wondered if she had any idea how embarassing that was to her. I listened a little bit more to the conversation between Ifill and "Coy" Borger, and turned WAshington Week off. What a waste of airtime.
They are all embarassing, but they live in such a bubble that they don't know it, nor do they care.
Which would be fine, except for the fact that their on the airwaves spewing this crap.
June 2, 2007 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you are not the elephant, the scenery never changes.
In the long parade of the Washington, D.C. court of kings and entourage, the scribes and jesters do not lead. They follow.
Gloria Berger and her fellow scribes dutifully regurgitate according to the royal script.
Her output only serves to locate her position in this ridiculous constellation.
Filing Borger and friends under: Born under a foul sign.
June 2, 2007 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm afraid you're right.
Debra Morgan Pardee
"The people who get on in this world are the people who get up and look for the circumstances they want, and, if they can't find them, make them." -- George Bernard Shaw
June 2, 2007 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why do I increasingly get the feeling that these Washington journalists gin up empty controversies for their reports so they can finish quickly and get back to arranging their social calendar.
June 2, 2007 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Haven't read it yet, but plan to.
I do admire Gore.
I just get touchy when a former FCC official starts in about what you can and can't say on public television. You should be able to say whatever you damned well think, even if it's stupid.
I bet we're really on the same side here.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
June 2, 2007 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gloria Borger is another reason why I like Mainstream Corporate Media (MCM) instead of MSM.
Came across this formulation years ago in a comment somewhere--wish I could give credit where it is due, but using MCM emphasizes the corporate aspect of so much of our media, including PBS and NPR, which must watch their p's and q's, as well as D's and R's. Amazingly, when discussing health care solutions recently, there was no one representing single payer! What's with that? Must not offend their corporate sponsors...?
June 2, 2007 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe they all just "misspoke." Republicans get to do that.
And re the MSM echo chamber, don't forget this little scenerio: A "reporter" states something he/she heard from an un-named source. That statement then becomes news because it has been stated on the air. It's like when Cheney leaked lies to the NYT and then quoted it to prove he must be telling the truth!
And who is demanding accountability? Only the blogosphere!
Jan
June 2, 2007 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Psssssst! Gore won!
One day we may find out all the facts of voter supression, especially in Florida. Even without suppression, Gore won. You want me to show you a "certain loser?" Meet George Bush, who has never done anything right in his whole life. OK, he was appointed by the Supreme Court, but you really can't find a bigger loser than Dubya.
I take issue with you on this:
He's a certain loser who has already waged the worst Democratic campaign for the presidency in a hundred years. He doen't deserve a chance at breaking his own record.
Leave out voter suppression. Leave out the Supreme Court. Do you deny he won the popular vote? How does that compare to Jimmy Carter's second run?
Jan
June 2, 2007 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah Hundt shut up. Anybody can say whatever they want. So shut up.
June 2, 2007 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
LongTom says:
"None of this, however, makes Gore a viable candidate. A fine fellow, an excellent administrator, and a terrible politician. He's a certain loser who has already waged the worst Democratic campaign for the presidency in a hundred years."
Wait a minute....now, wait a minute....I thought Kerry "waged the worst Democratic campaign for the presidency in a hundred years."
June 3, 2007 4:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
We stopped watching Washington Week in Review years ago, after it became obvious to us that they had pretty much the same stable of jackasses (from which they pulled their weekly panelists) year after year.
June 3, 2007 8:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
for a sterling example of the rnc spin that finds voice in the wdc cocktail circuit, and how that has nothing to do with reality, there's nothing better than a segment on dan bartlett on friday's countdown.
richard wolfe from newsweek was the first rnc parrot up with the bromides about 'dan is the son chimpy never had' -- the same crap lil mikey allen spouted in his politico write-up. after a couple of minutes of lathering bartlett's tenure, wolfe was out and onscreen came james moore, author of 'bush's brain' and with an extensive knowledge of texas politics. needless to say, moore's take on bartlett was about 180 from the sally quinn party pal set.
c&l has the clip and it's definitely worth checking out.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/06/02/wanking-dan-bartlett/
oh, and re gloria borger. i'd cut her some slack -- it looks like the latest tightening around her eyes may have squeezed out some of her brain.
June 3, 2007 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Al Gore shows every sign of having learned from his mistakes. Somebody like that would make a formidable campaigner.
June 3, 2007 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pardon me, but in my opinion, they are NOT legitimate observations from prominent national "journalists" when:
1. Gore has over and over and over again made his position about running clear on tv, raido and in print for months and months--he isn't thinking about it at this time, doesn't see himself in the race in 2008.
and
2. The ostensible reason they were discussing him at all was because he does indeed have the #1 best seller right now and it is about an extremely important topic that they refuse to discuss because it involves criticism of they themselves, their employers and the very bedrock assumptions of their corporate business enterprise which masquerades as journalism. Talking about the substance of Gore's book would mean they might have to start acknowledging their crucial role in undermining the democratic foundations of our society.
June 3, 2007 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Ms. Ifill and Ms. Borger agreed Mr. Gore was 'just selling books.'"
Thank you, Robert Pirsig.
June 3, 2007 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Reed was rightly using this particular blather by Borger and Ifill, on WWIR, on PBS, to make a broader point about the state of journalism as a distributor of duplicity and thoughtlessness (as described in Gore’s book).
PBS, a public entity, with a recent history of a quasi-Republican takeover (ouster of Moyers), coinciding with six years of rampant Washington Insider-ism by the press and the right-wing influence across all media demands closer scrutiny. WWIR is a news roundup. It is supposed to be a fact based venture, not a bleating pundit show, but this is just another of the hopelessly blurred lines that surrounds the news/entertainment/advocacy/talk show commercial product.
Two recent documentaries that I could not bear to watch all the way through cast a light on the political slant of our national network. The "New anti-Semitism" documentary hosted by Judy Woodruff was disgraceful propaganda coming from the home of Frontline. This was followed by the America at the Crossroads series (some good), one of which was a straight Richard Perle apologia and another a creepy, AIPAC-style “expose” of the Arab Brotherhood by Mike Isikoff.
I think the general profit motivations to turn media into entertainment plays into the superficial reporting on politics, which helps Republicans. Has there ever been a valid reason for a legitimate journalist to breath the name Paris Hilton? There should not even be a question anymore that rightwing body snatchers have taken over, influenced or scared the press away from substantive truth-telling, attacking from many angles, all the while crying foul at the liberally-biased MSM.
June 3, 2007 10:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
PBS recently moved to Mockingbird Hill when the gamekeepers for that estate had a member appointed to manage PBS.
The world has achieved brilliance without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.
Gen. Omar Bradley
June 4, 2007 12:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
He's not president is he? Doesn't that kind of define "winning?"
Gore lost an unloseable election. He made every mistake conceivable, and looked indecisive while doing it. Just awful.
June 4, 2007 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, but he won't learn from his next set of mistakes until it's too late. Gore is a terrible politician. As soon as he has something to lose, he'll tighten up and choke it away. He is absolutely not to be trusted with this next nomination.
June 4, 2007 9:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
You sure have a different definition of winning than I do. From where I sit, the winner gets to hold the office, the loser goes home.
One thing I'll never forgive Gore for is how eager he was to concede on election night. Then he had to call Bush back and retract his concession. What an idiot!
June 4, 2007 9:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gore was running as the second in command to a highly popular and successful president. He chose to run away from Clinton. The country had never been better off than after 8 years of Clinton and Gore. Clinton's approval rating was in the 70s in 1999 and 2000. How stupid can he get? I'm not sure, but I don't want to give Gore a chance to show me how much stupider he can get.
And y'know what? Carter didn't deserve to be re-elected. If it weren't for the Iranians taking those hostages, Kennedy would have been nominated and beaten Reagan.
June 4, 2007 9:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I said that? I must have meant "second-worst."
June 4, 2007 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
LongTom,
You're entitled to your opinion. I happen to disagree with you. I think like Nixon in 68, Gore would be a slam dunk in NOV 08, a way for the elctorate to absolve itself of the Bush mistake and make things right.
A lot of intelligent ink has been spilled about Gore 2000 and the Media. I recommend
www.dailyhowler.com
June 4, 2007 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read The Howler; Somerby names names and supplies quotes of the light weight "journalists" of the day.
June 4, 2007 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why are they afraid of Al Gore? First the Maureen Dowd column, then David Brooks then the Ifil interview and the Borger comments --and those are just the ones I actually saw. I'm guessing there were a lot more along the same lines. All of them nasty, belittling and personal, with little focus on what he was writing about. Could it be that they don't think he is a loser, that they are afraid that he could indeed win, that he has a compelling message that might resonate with voters? I too thought he ran a terrible campaign in 2000. I think he had bad advice and ran from Clinton because he was genuinely offended by his conduct. But he is a very bright, well informed man and he's got a lot of good ideas. Maybe they are just smart enough to know that and want to make sure that he has no chance or inclination to run by giving him a taste of what he could expect from the media if he were so foolish as to actually try to run.
June 4, 2007 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha! That was pretty funny.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
June 4, 2007 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
His trouble in 2000 wasn't that he ran from Clinton, it was that he ran from himself. If you're going to run against Clinton, then you better well run AGAINST Clinton and run FOR something else. If he'd run from his own heart, he'd have run further to the left and he might have done no worse.
June 4, 2007 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree with you completely, but I know you believe what you say. Do you at least accept that Gore actually WON in 2000? If you won't admit that then I guess we have no common ground.
All that said, who do you think is worthy? Who has not made mistakes? And most important, who do you think can get moderate republicans who are worried about the futures of their children and grandchildren to vote for them?
Hillary? They hate her! They distrust her! (and as a yellow dog democrat, I don't hate her, but I'd have to hold my nose to vote for her -- why would ANY republican do tha?)
Obama? He was my great hope, and he let me down last night by not answering questions and being too careful.
Edwards? Unfortunately he doesn't have a chance.
Kucinich? The smartest guy at the debate, but too smart for the average voter.
Gore: Our only answer. If he waits until the right moment; when all seems to be lost, we will all rally to his side (Ihope)
Tom -- He was a wonderful candidate with a million faults in 2000. He has grown up. Give him a chance.
He is our only hope.
(Just call me princess Leiah, OBWan Kanobi!)
Jan
June 4, 2007 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your thumbnail sketches of the candidates point out the problem so many Dems have of confusing who the best candidate would be (i.e., who is the best politician, the one most likely to win), who the most deserving would be, and who would be the best president.
I like Hillary, but I would not vote for her in a primary for two reasons: first, I agree with you that she starts off with too high a negative rating. At least 45% of the voters would never vote for her no matter what. Also, why does she deserve the nomination? I'm fed up with nepotism. She managed to coattail her husband's presidency and win a Senate seat in one of the most Democratic states in the country. Big deal. How the hell does that qualify her for the nomination? Why Hillary and not Feinstein or Pelosi? One word: nepotism. Screw that.
Edwards is a nothing. He added nothing to Kerry's campaign, and couldn't get reelected to the Senate in his own state. The only election he could ever win is a Democratic primary. He's done nothing to counteract the "$400 haircut" blather from the right, which is reminiscent of Dukakis and Kerry's unwillingness to deal with stupid insults from the right, an unwillingness that ultimately sank them both. And, I found his self-flagellation over his Iraq resolution vote unseemly.
To me, Obama looks like the real thing. Your disappointment notwithstanding, his upside potential is enormous. He's smart, charismatic, natural, and seems like he's avoiding political cliches. He's staking out a position as a "unity" candidate, and he does not seem afraid (as all the other Dems are) of slinging insults back at the Republicans. He could get 60% of the national vote if he does it right. (Hillary's greatest potential is to win a squeaker)
I know you like Gore. I like him, too, but NEVER as a candidate. He was awful, and there's no reason to think he woudn't be awful again. I've got one word for you: Lieberman. How could you even think of supporting a man who chose this useless troll as a running mate?
Anyway, it's already too late for Gore. You have to run for the Dem nomination, and it's just too late to get the money and the backing.
June 5, 2007 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
But Gore was a slam dunk in 2000!
A way for the electorate to continue the prosperity of the Clinton years while washing their hands clean of the Clinton scandals. And Gore was running against a candidate about as formidable as Dan Quayle.
What happened? Sure, Gore got the shaft from the media, but what did he do about it? How did he counterattack? How did he neutralize the media's unfairness, or turn it to his advantage?
Gore is awful. Sure, he was treated unfairly, but why is THAT going to change? It won't, because the right controls the media.
And I would really have to leave the country while waiting for Gore to pick his NEXT running mate. After picking Lieberman, what would he do this time? Pick Newt Gingrich? Or how about Lieberman AGAIN?
The voters aren't looking for absolution. They want to move FORWARD. Gore and Hillary are too much aprt of the past.
June 5, 2007 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh and Leiah, your question about whether Gore won in 2000 is kind of double-edged. Sure he won the popular vote (which means nothing in a presidential election), and sure the election was stolen from him in Florida.
BUT HE ALLOWED THESE THINGS TO HAPPEN! Why didn't HE steal the election right back from Bush and James Baker? Bush sent Baker to Florida and Gore sent Warren Christopher. A political shark versus a warmed-over corpse.
It's true that whatever the outcome of the wrangling in Florida, the SCOTUS was leaning toward giving the White House to Bush. But why did Gore let it get to that point? What did he do to counteract Jeb's voter supression tactics? You can bet nothing like this would have ever happened to LBJ or John Kennedy.
Gore simply has no instincts for politics, a game in which you go for the jugular and do anything to win. And winning, Princess Leiah, is defined by who gets sworn into office when the election is over. No other definition makes sense, and there is no such thing as a moral victory in politics.
June 5, 2007 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink