Jack the Name-Caller
Gore gets Nobel prize, flies to Bali, and identifies the United States as major obstacle to talks there on global warming. Two days later the United States relents, and agrees to a compromise that apparently produces at least some progress. For this obvious contribution to the global effort to address climate change, Jack Cafferty of CNN rewards Gore by calling him a "pompous jerk."
And we wonder whether the mainstream media helps or hurts our country?
The question to me is this: why does the MSM behave like this? What economics or bias of ownership or attention-seeking mechanism causes a Cafferty to get air time? Goodness knows most Americans don't agree with his assessment on the merits. An Oscar, Emmy and Nobel in one year is an achievement most Americans are proud of one American accomplishing. Global warming itself is plainly the biggest single international crisis over the rest of this century. Certainly Cafferty knows this. So what motivates him to mock Gore?
I really don't know. I don't see political science or economics answering this question. I am hard pressed to imagine that the FCC's media ownership rules speak to this sort of behavior. I find it more offensive than Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction, but I don't see how the FCC can censor such offensiveness.
Comments (41)
Reed,
I was sorry to see this Gore remark by Cafferty.
I've been enjoying his recent rants, he reminds me of HL Mencken, another likeable curmudgeon.
December 15, 2007 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're a smart one John but... I've read HL Mencken, I've read about HL Mencken and I've read writers recommended by HL Mencken and Jack Cafferty is no HL Mencken.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
December 16, 2007 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see anything new or recent about Jack Cafferty's modus operandi; I think he's quite old fashioned in style. See for instance, some of the journalists mentioned in this Time Magazine piece of June 6, 1949.
December 15, 2007 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
NO GOOD DEED GOES UNPUNISHED!
December 15, 2007 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because Jack Cafferty is playing a character. He's like a not-funny Stephen Colbert.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
December 15, 2007 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ours must be the only country in the world where you cannot get elected president if you're a pompous jerk.
In his 2000 campaign, Gore was forever being vilified for this malady. When talk arose of him possibly running next year, the supposed death blow -- that he's a pompous jerk -- raised its ugly head again.
Over half the country voted for Gore despite his pompous jerkiness. It was not a deal killer for this majority that he is a wooden speaker, either.
If we were all judged on our personalities, after all, few of us would have jobs.
Steve LeVine, author
The Oil and the Glory (Random House)
http://www.oilandglory.com
December 15, 2007 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
And he's anything but a pompous jerk. As you can see from the other comments, this canard has been hardwired into people's brains. Who was maligning him? The press.
December 15, 2007 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
The major pompous jerks in American public life seem to all work for the Press.
What is it with them? Do they feel emasculated because they have never had the nerve to run for public office themselves and instead have no other way of getting noticed by the public except getting on someone else' payroll and, like they did in High School, announcing who the in-kids were and who they don't think made the grade?
Used to be some of the TV news readers actually tried to cover the news, but all of them came out of print journalism. Very few had what in those days were called journalism degrees, either.
Now they all get Communications degrees (which must have a special department that focuses on hairdo's and makeup - real weed-out course, that) and they learn to look both snide and knowledgeable at the same time as the try to harpoon the politicians who are (for all their flaws) so far above the Press in quality that they live in separate worlds.
The only people in the media dumber and more incompetent than the pundits have got to be their management. The management doesn't expose their ignorance and idiocy directly to the public every day, but think about the process they must have considered to resemble "thinking" that led the CBS management to choose the ignorant and utterly incompetent Katy Couric to destroy whatever was left of CBS News.
There is something about the American media that attracts, overpays and tries to glorify the fools, idiots, snake oil salesmen and scamsters. And whatever it is, like a bad horror show it is getting worse.
December 15, 2007 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
An afterthought - is it possible that the Press weenies look at Al Gore, realize that he started out to be one of them, and he escaped to a much higher form of life?
Are the Press weenies sniping out of envy? That's how it worked in High School when they sniped at the Nerds who actually succeeded academically.
December 15, 2007 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've read and reread your comments several times now and your explanation seems to hit the nail on the head - they're jealous.
What strikes me now is the immaturity of the press corp. It's like some ghastly new reality show called "Presscorp Junior High" where the participants are chosen for their shallowness and ability to report day in and day out on every single banality, stupidity, mistake, misquote or pique the candidate might display at any given moment. Issues? What issues?
Here's something that I have experienced first hand - they'll talk to ten people and find the one person with something negative to say if they (the reporters) don't like the candidate (which generally seems to hinge on how well they're treated on the bus, plane, hotel rooms and catered meals, which by the way, they expect to be good) and then report that "the candidate was not well received by the voters, as Soand So said, 'I thought he was wooden' which seems to be the general consensus among those attending tonight."
I used to think it was a good idea to assign reporters to campaigns - they can cultivate sources, develop some continuity, perhaps have a deeper understanding of the candidates, but I no longer believe that to be true. It seems that the reporters assigned to a campaign degenerate into an "us v. them" mentality, where work conditions are personal and gripes are echoed and bounced back and forth and slights both real and imagined become magnified. It's a bad system for a nation dependent on the press corp for their political discourse.
December 16, 2007 8:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have to take issue with the word "reporter". I don't believe most of them have ever done any significant reporting.
Once upon a time, pundits earned their status by working up through the ranks doing very unglamorous reporting of hard news. Now, the press is born and raised in upscale northeastern suburbs, goes to prep school, on to the Ivy League, returns to their privileged enclaves with a job won through connections. They are as out of touch with Kansas or Mississippi as any ivory tower liberal ever was. They have absolutely no capacity to think outside the box of conventional establishment "wisdom" because they are the establishment. They aren't the 4th estate they are part of the estate class.
December 16, 2007 8:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
We miss the target of our problems or the processes that present propaganda meant to control us by targeting an individual "reader" or "designed personality" called a reporter or commenter.
Nothing, I say noting, goes on air today without a script and a "personality" spin. It is in the next and the next and the next "controller’s of scripts" that we should be commenting on and trying to tease out of the atmosphere. To just take at face value what we experience in the "present" (really no such thing because of emotional baggage planted previously and future visions that are lies also meant to control) is an impossibility to discuss and understand what is being used to manipulate our hopeless understanding of the present situation.
This is not meant to be cynical or negative but a request to better peel outward the "onion" of propaganda we are caught in.
To look inward can be useful for patters to use in looking outward.
To target lateral things such as one commenter is to lose the focus. To comment laterally and achieve something one should comments on different "actor" presenting input into us in the media and take there weave or pattern to look for the layers behind them and inward to understand why we are so motivated to fall for the "emotions" responses they expect it to produce. Never forget it works. ON a mass scale it works.
We seem to touch thing here and achieve understandings, but then lose this when we move on to the next comments thrown out.
It is like in the media. If we do not have our nitch in the output to keep a summary of where we stand on collected understandings and to keep testing and collecting more for integration and testing of the old views our collective voice and thus "we ourself(ves)" are blow away like the leaves in the fall to be collected and burned to a Smokey Vail in the considered reality.
-----------------------------------------------
Today, are we searching for I deals or Ideals?
-Thinking
December 16, 2007 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about.
December 18, 2007 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think if you look very hard at all you can find lots of people who have worked with Al Gore who think he is a pompous jerk. He always has to be the smartest guy in the room. His way always has to be the right way. The fact that he is often the smartest guy in the room and his approach is right makes him doubly annoying to many.
Where I live (Missouri) there are lots of people who dislike Al Gore. Even if they agree with him, they are tired of him. I work full time in conservation and I sometimes tire of Gore and his methods. It is a sad state of affairs, but someone else, the Aussie Tim Flannery for instance, might be a more effective spokesman for the climate change movement in America.
December 15, 2007 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
How do you know this? Because this is the crap that the press has been feeding you for the last ten years? I can't find any example of anyone who has worked for Al Gore saying he was anything but a really nice guy who is funny and bright and unfailingly polite. You'd have to look really hard to find anyone who has worked with him ever say he's a pompous jerk.
December 15, 2007 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess all those people I worked with in the Clinton administration from 1996-2000 were just making it up then.
Look, I don't mind Al Gore that much. I happen to know several people more knowlegeable about climate change science and policy than him, but his success in popularizing this great cause is worth celebrating.
My point is that there are many, many people who see Al Gore come on their televisions and immediately shut down. These are, by and large, the same nearly 50 percent of the electorate who say they would never vote for Hillary.
Trouble is, people who are smart AND aggressive (leaders) are often polarizing. That's why we often elect "likeable" candidates whether they have anything on the ball (Bill) or not (Dubya).
December 15, 2007 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
People have no idea as to how brainwashed they are. For example, I read your criticism of Al Gore almost word for word in other publications. Here is one made by Dana Milbank which actually manages to combine both phrases in the same sentence - "Prof. Gore kept pompously reminding attendees that he was the smartest guy in the room."
So 50% of the population "shuts down" when they see Gore or Sen. Clinton on tv? Maybe this is the same 50% who would shut down when they saw Bill Clinton, John Kerry and any other democratic candidate appear on tv.
December 16, 2007 7:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
JustOneGuy said:
In the movie A Bridge Too Far, a battle I fought in, a British general tells a young intelligence officer who is warning of the armor in Arnhem; (paraphrase) 'Um, Lieutenant, don't take it too hard, you're more intelligent than most of us and it tends to make us uncomfortable.'
Of course the Intelligence officer was right, and the battle was a battle lost.
December 16, 2007 6:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
As a woman in my fifties, I have noticed that men of my age have a tendency to become pompous jerks. I'm not quite sure why. Maybe it's the transitional age. Too old to have edgy youthful qualities and too young to have the grace and wisdom of the senior set, they just come off as full of themselves, arrogant and boring.
December 15, 2007 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe it's a function of the lengthening of lifespan.
I've noticed that young people these days don't mature until their middle twenties and even early thirties. (Women do so sooner - usually by around twenty-five or so - but the guys too often don't seem to act in a mature manner until their late twenties and even early thirties.)
When I ask women in their thirties of so about this observation, most of the women smile sadly and agree. The guys look at me and say "Huh?"
Is there now a later gap of this type for men in their fifties? Two generations ago, those men were aged and clearly seniors.
December 15, 2007 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
As far as the maturation of the young, there now is a fair bit of brain imaging evidence that the emotion-damping parts of the brain mature later in men than women.
As far as a second gap, I am not aware of any hard data. I wonder, however, if it might have to do with relative health status. The singular of data not being anecdote, I remember male relatives, younger than I am now, looking older and having more physical complaints.
In saying "relative", my reference is to the ability to manage chronic disease. My father was dead 17 years before my current age, and was very much a cardiac cripple for a number of years before that. Now, while I down handfuls of pills, have electronics in my chest, etc., I don't have anywhere near the same limitations.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
December 16, 2007 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
What's the alternative for Gore? Just going away?
If Gore says something wrong, fine, but let's see what's wrong. I'd take a pompous jerk that's mostly right over a clueless buffoon that's wrong about absolutely everything.
December 15, 2007 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tom,
Calling someone a pompous ass is an opinion, and I have mine; George Will is a pompous ass, not Gore.
On C-SPAN this morning there was a guest reporter from New Hampshire. The host read a story claiming Hillary to be "ambitious."
The reporter went along with the group think. I tried to get through on the phone to say the following;
(feigning shock)while asking the reporter;
"WOW, Hillary is ambitious too???
Why just the other day I read in a few places and heard on TV that she's also "calculating!"
Let me tell you Miss, I WILL NEVER vote for a politician that's calculating and ambitious. Now what do you think of that?
Miss, strive for original thought and get off the script. See the words "calculating" and "ambitious" for what they are, words that describe everyone, which makes them meaningless as a pejorative charge thrown at Hillary.
I now add "goddam pompous ass" to calculating and ambitious as political mumbo jumbo.
December 16, 2007 6:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes to all.
December 16, 2007 6:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lets see on this side one Cafferty Gore a "pompous jerk."
On the other side is Bush. After the words for Gore,
what words would he use for Bush if there
were no FCC obscenity rules?
Or should we blame it all on the writers strike?
-----------------------------------------------
Today, are we searching for I deals or Ideals?
-Thinking
December 15, 2007 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cafferty is pretty damn good. And if you don't know that you must not pay much attention.
And Gore is a goddam pompous ass. He's unbearable. Bush didn't win the election; Gore lost it. And are you sure it was that pompous ass who got the US to change its position?. I kind of liked the guy from Papua New Guinea. But since the US is the center of the goddamn universe, you must be right.
December 15, 2007 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
seth,
its interesting how you call Gore a "goddam pompous ass" while at the same time praising the guy from Papua New Guinea who not only received your favor but also the praise of those at the meeting for pushing Gore's raison d'etre.
Where would your man from Papua be if not for Gore?
Where would the problem of Global Warming be without Gore?
December 16, 2007 5:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
The US has never lead on this issue and its not leading now. It didn't start with Gore, he's just the American pompous ass with the biggest American megaphone. He's the Hollywood remake of the foreign film.
"Where would your man from Papua be if not for Gore?
Where would the problem of Global Warming be without Gore?"
The arrogance of that statement is mindblowing.
America IS the center of the universe.
December 16, 2007 8:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Its obvious the Nobel Committee disagrees with you as do hundreds of scientists.
Let me rephrase the question, you may then understand it.
Did the guy from Papua address the same issues and have the same aims as Gore; acting on Global Warming and trying to get the USA to lead?
Would the problem of Global Warming be the concern of as many people if not for Gore?
Would as many be aware of the problem if not for Gore?
The questions have nothing to do with America being the center of the universe, you seem to have some kind of obsession with that idea.
December 16, 2007 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Its obvious the Nobel Committee disagrees with you as do hundreds of scientists."
The Nobel committee gave the award to Henry Kissinger and F.W. de Klerk, and I'm not arguing the science. In fact some have complained that Gore didn't go far enough. See comment 20 on this post.
That being said, I found the transcript and Cafferty jumped too quickly.
And then I found this. Check out the update. Cafferty has been very good on some things, but not on everything apparently. But Gore still annoys me. He's not a hero he's a mouthpiece and a figurehead. And he's a lousy politician. It annoys me that he believes his own act, and it annoys me when others do too.
"Would the problem of Global Warming be the concern of as many people if not for Gore?
Would as many be aware of the problem if not for Gore?"
You mean outside the US? Then the answer is yes.
December 16, 2007 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
While I agree that Gore has no political charisma and comes off like an arrogant PhD, I don't buy the attacks on his record. He's got a more significant Senate record than Hillary, Obama, or Edwards plus 8 years as VP, and even military service. If he wanted to just do an act, he could have picked an issue more politically hot than global warming. It's Hillary who did the hard right turn going from "it takes a village to raise a child" to signing on to bombing Iraqi villages. And unlike Edwards, Gore actually did something about his chosen issue in the years after he left office.
December 16, 2007 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't like any of them much. They're all a pretty uninteresting bunch. Not that Bill was better than his wife, but Gore blew it. He gave us Bush; actually running against his history with Clinton after the Lewinsky mess, while most of the country didn't give a shit. That was just stupid.
Clinton was a sleazeball, but he was a smart sleazeball, He was also a moderate republican, to the right of the Canadian Conservative PM Brian Mulroney, But Americans like to think of liberalism or anything else as constant, when in fact we've been drifiting to the right for decades. Clinton actually pissed off Gingrich, who accused him of stealing his platform.
None of these assholes are heros.
December 16, 2007 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
How do we get a view of them? The media!
If we do not trust the media in almost every other post her why do we trust their views of these people they gave us. Is that not what we have to use to comment about them by?
Before someone say,” I listen to the speeches and see for myself," remember the preconceptions formed by the media taint our minds expectations.
-----------------------------------------------
Today, are we searching for I deals or Ideals?
-Thinking
December 16, 2007 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Chris Dodd is a hero. Or, if he does what he says he'll do tomorrow, he will be.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
December 16, 2007 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
So "CVilleDem" rates me a one rather than having the guts to make a counter argument, so I'll continue:
We've been suckered again by the US. So far the Bali deal is worse than Kyoto
December 17, 2007 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
seth,
After reading all your posts on this matter, I have an ever growing suspicion that its not Gore you have a problem with, its the United States.
December 17, 2007 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Power corrupts.
I'm not much as a moralist. I don't even try to be. But Americans need heroes and they invent them if they have to. JFK or "Ronny" or Bill. I remember a poster of Jimmy Carter with long hair and a beard. The text read: "JC can save America."
If people would treat politicians as their servants rather than their masters we'd all be better off. The people of the united states are less aware of that truism than most.
December 17, 2007 9:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Finally, you say something well-thought-out and inciteful:
If people would treat politicians as their servants rather than their masters we'd all be better off. The people of the united states are less aware of that truism than most.
In fact it is downright brilliant. You got a "1" above because you were just throwing words around. Who "gave us Bush?" It wasn't Bill Clinton -- even with all his warts he was a very popular guy all the way through.
Gore WON. The Supremes gave us Bush, and they gave themselves the biggest black eye they had ever had -- so far. I also think calling a group of former presidents, ets "assholes" is unproductive, which is the definition of a "1." Guts have nothing to do with it; if you had not come up with this post I just wouldn't have taken the trouble because it isn't worth it. I'm sure you don't understand anything that I've said except the compliment at the top.
Jan
December 18, 2007 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
seth says:
And just as many people need enemies to rail against, real or imagined.
I guess there might be a point there somewhere. Sounds kind of vacuous.
So, you took a survey or is this that anti Americanism that I suspect you may have?
December 18, 2007 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
moved
December 16, 2007 8:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Prof. Gore kept pompously reminding attendees that he was the smartest guy in the room." I think the idea is that, just by existing, he reminds the press and especially the pundits that they're not terribly smart or at least intellectually lazy in pursuing their profession. They hate that; no wonder they turned on him.
I think some of the same thing goes into media fascination year in, year out with the idea that some measure of character can be judged as not just more valuable than experience, but actually can be judged quite apart from looking at what someone has done. After all, the pundits want you to think they can be instant experts.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
December 16, 2007 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink