Kai Rysdaal and Lary Kudlow

If you missed the interview live on Marketplace, it’s worth catching when they post up on the website. Kudlow is hilarious! At one point he gets annoyed and tells Rysdaal, “Look, don’t class warfare me.” LOL
«13

Comments

  • So, according to Rysdall, inflation subsumes wage growth under Trump, but is irrelevant to ten years of "growth" under Obama?

    Discounted for the bias, NPR is still one of the more interesting sources of news.
  • I actually think Rysdaal is a decent guy, but when his bias emerges, Kudlow has none of it.
  • If you don't mind, I'll use this as an NPR thread.  When people ask why tensions are so high politically, one legitimate answer is "NPR".

    I listened on the way in this morning and heard an interview of this fellow organizing a "Unite the Right" march.  The NPR interrogator wasn't especially challenging, but she was antagonistic.  She asks why he needs to march when he could just have a conversation on a couch.  She asks why he would imagine differences amongst groups of people, and he notes that the subject has been studied by people like Charles Murry.  Her response: ""Oh C'mon! Charles Murray?".  She asserts that Murray's work has been discredited scientifically.  He asks by whom.  She asserts by every scientist but Murray. 

    The organizer notes that he has invited a BLM speaker, and the piece moves on to the invited BLM individual explaining why he won't go, but will instead engage in a counter protest.  No antagonism or incredulity from NPR.

    This "Unite the Right" organizer sounded fairly young and very unsophisticated.  A dispassionate interrogation probably would have reflected more poorly on him than the NPR piece.  Instead of covering the topic and conducting a neutral interview, NPR fed into the antagonism. 

  • edited August 10
    It carries over into just about everything they broadcast, with maybe the exception of reruns of Car Talk. I can't even listen to Wait Wait Don't Tell Me anymore because it's non-stop Trump. I don't love the guy, but I'm sick of hearing about it. Even my wife, who hates him and voted for Pant Suit is sick of it.
  • Seabird said:

    I can't even listen to Wait Wait Don't Tell Me anymore because it's non-stop Trump. I don't love the guy, but I'm sick of hearing about it. Even my wife, who hates him and voted for Pant Suit is sick of it.




    I listen to it. If I'm in the car at that time and it's on NPR, I'm listening to it. Wait Wait Don't Tell Me doesn't bother me. We know what Paula Poundstone is and can take account of it. It reminds me of the time I heard Leelee Sobieski say something political; that's wasn't why I was looking at her so it didn't make a difference.
  • It's not just their reporting on Trump. They slant things in sensational ways despite their claims that they're not that kind of news organization. I was listening to a story about the Manafort case. The journa-babe was talking about how mean the judge has been to the vaunted and long-suffering prosecutors. She stated how unusual it is for a judge to be so hard on one side of a case, especially with such seasoned lawyers.

    Thing is, it's not that unusual for a judge to pound on the side that he thinks is going to win. I know that they do it on purpose, especially in cases that they perceive to be slam dunks so as to avoid any sense that the winning side had it easy when the appeals process inevitably starts.
  • Seabird said:

    It's not just their reporting on Trump.


    I agree.

    I have some amber tinted glasses for driving and shooting.  This causes a slight color shift, but the brain sort of adjusts to it and interprets colors correctly.  Listening to NPR is similar for me.

    The pieces that peeve me on NPR involve not just a news personality exhibiting an opinion, but doing it in a way even they think isn't legitimate.  When Terry Gross engaged in an "empty chair" interview of Bill O'Reilly, even she knew it was unethical.  When NPR fits a Peter Overby hit piece into the news that is all innuendo based on a lobbying group not returning his call or in which Overby refers to his prior organization, Common Cause, as a "good government group" without disclosing his association, he violates journalistic ethics.  When grandfatherly news-voice Carl Kassel calls a nominee to the DC Dist. Ct, "that honduran immigrant lawyer" in his news reading, there is a violation of their own standards.  When NPR fires Juan Williams because he says something that gave them a case of the vapors, then suggest at a press conference that he should talk to his therapist about, they are just being small, grubby people.  At NPR, the ethical lapses all flow one way.

    I didn't have a problem with Kai Rysdaal's question; it was part of an interrogation that was fair and interesting because Kudlow is a smart fellow and got the chance to respond.

    This news girl's piece on the Unite the Right fellow was notable for a different reason.  It was worse than useless, and she was arguing with him, not interrogating him effectively.  She thought that was what her audience wanted, and she could be correct in part.  That's an element of the problem too.
  • I can't believe Peter Overby gets a pass as an objective journalist. Nina Totenberg, too.
  • Seabird said:

    I can't believe Peter Overby gets a pass as an objective journalist. Nina Totenberg, too.




    There’s no such thing as pure objectivity in any human endeavor, only its attempt. The best any journalist can do is try to be as objective as humanly possible; the best any reader or viewer can do is recognize their tendencies and biases and consider the value of their reporting accordingly.
  • And athe only major news outlet that’s actually BEING objective is Breitbart.

  • edited August 16
    vwtool said:

    Seabird said:

    I can't believe Peter Overby gets a pass as an objective journalist. Nina Totenberg, too.




    There’s no such thing as pure objectivity in any human endeavor, only its attempt. The best any journalist can do is try to be as objective as humanly possible; the best any reader or viewer can do is recognize their tendencies and biases and consider the value of their reporting accordingly.


    No shit?

    I wasn't criticizing them for a lack of thoughtful objectivity. I criticize them for claiming thoughtful objectivity. And before you say they don't, just sit through their week and a half long spring and fall pledge drives.

    And what Overby and Totenberg do is pure editorialism.
  • Tool believes what the TV tells him to,
  • MC Escher said:

    Tool believes what the TV tells him to,




    Speaking of TV, is that Mueller investigation “over” yet? Seems like it’s gonna get picked up for another season!
  • vwtool said:

    Speaking of TV, is that Mueller investigation “over” yet? Seems like it’s gonna get picked up for another season!

    Are we guessing whether it will wind down before or after RBG retires?
  • edited August 17
    Slap said:...Are we guessing whether it will wind down before or after RBG retires?




    So it seems
    you're guessing that some active intervention from the SC will be required. Trump's pick of Kavanaugh indicates that he is capable of some strategic thinking, at least where his own self-preservation is concerned. 

    It will "wind down" with members of the Trump administration in handcuffs. Personally, I hope we avoid impeachment proceedings. I'd rather have a neutered Trump than that Christian jihadist, Pence, in charge. 

  • vwtool said:



    It will "wind down" with members of the Trump administration in handcuffs.

    LOL...
    No, seriously... When will it end?
  • edited August 17
    MC Escher said:



    LOL...
    No, seriously... When will it end?




    Will it ever begin?

    Let's see what is public to date.

    There is the Manafort prosecution. Manafort appears guilty of having poor political judgement in his foreign dealings, and well after those dealings he was in the DJT campaign. It isn't clear yet that he is guilty of any actual crimes.

    Michael Flynn pled guilty to lying to the FBI as a result of potential prosecutorial misconduct, that misconduct involving telling Flynn that he had lied when they didn't actually think he had. What Flynn is alleged to have lied about is his role in the transition team, not collusion in campaign efforts.

    They've announced indictments of russians they don't expect to ever serve, but none of those indictments involve crimes committed by any americans.

    Subsequently Mueller's team have leaked that they are examining DJT's tweets and they are negotiating for an interrogation of DJT they won't get. In a couple more weeks, they will be barred by internal procedure from issuing any report until after the mid-term.

    With democrats hyperventilating about collusion for almost two years, could Mueller's report be worse than what we've all heard alleged hundreds of times already? The likely effect will be the issuance of some report listing who they interviewed and why they aren't prosecuting anyone further. Most will think it isn't as big a deal as forecast. Hysterics will be weeping, again, on their television programs.

    Of course, I could be wrong. The Special Counsel could be releasing weak information to give his targets an undue sense of security leading up to a significant prosecution.

    What would that prosecution be for exactly? We hear a single congressional nitwit alleging actual election interference in his own state, but that appears to be mere conjecture. Will it be against russians who typed "Password" to breach democrat cybersecurity?

    I've a smart friend who is sure that there was election fraud in DJT's victory. She can't name anything specific, but she knows it's there. It has to be. Otherwise she'd have to admit that americans preferred a salesman who can't speak in sentences and has an hilarious comb-over to her Lady Pantsuit. I don't think she will enjoy Mueller's report.
  • nbody said:

     Otherwise she'd have to admit that Americans preferred a salesman who can't speak in sentences and has an hilarious comb-over to her Lady Pantsuit.


    Otherwise she'd have to admit that Hillary was the worst candidate in American history.
  • Worse than Dukakis?
  • vwtool said:

    So it seems you're guessing that some active intervention from the SC will be required. 

    No.  I suspect the Democrats' two years of hysteria and projection of Clinton corruption onto Trump will backfire in the midterms, or be irrelevant to the economic data that Democrats in the press won't be able to hide from the public, so that the Republicans won't loose enough seats in the midterms to make Trump vulnerable to impeachment.

    I mention Trump's influence on the Supreme Court on the possibility that more-likely-possibilities might intrude upon your impeachment pipe-dreams.
  • It’s the economy, stupid.
  • Seabird said:

    Worse than Dukakis?

    McGovern?
  • Nice write up Zuk.

    "Christian jihadist"

    Ha!  People must love you at parties.
  • Come on, Jimp.

    You know he's the same as the Taliban.
  • 2.FOH. said:

    Come on, Jimp.

    You know he's the same as the Taliban.

    He would have to be literally caught on camera beheading an unwed pregnant teen seeking an abortion for you to make the connection.

    Even then, some on this forum would argue that the blade striking her neck was the result of her own actions.
  • vwtool said:

    2.FOH. said:

    Come on, Jimp.

    You know he's the same as the Taliban.

    He would have to be literally caught on camera beheading an unwed pregnant teen seeking an abortion for you to make the connection.



    He would have to do something the Taliban had done in order for him to see a connection to the Taliban?

    That's your zinger?

  • nbody said:



    He would have to do something the Taliban had done in order for him to see a connection to the Taliban?

    That's your zinger?


    He would have to witness the disaster before he would believe it could happen. He would have to see a literal connection before he could accept that they’re similar in spirit if not in deeds.

    Too little, too late, in other words.
Sign In or Register to comment.