?

Log in

No account? Create an account
peeved - The Villages

hutch0
Date: 2008-03-09 21:36
Subject: peeved
Security: Public
Location:the utility room in the sky
Mood:annoyedannoyed
Music:foo fighters
I've previously been unaware of the ouvre of MSNBC's Tucker Carlson, but he recently interviewed Gerri Peev, the Scotsman journalist responsible for breaking the Hillary `monster' story which resulted in the resignation of Obama adviser Samantha Powers.
Now, the debate over whether Gerri Peev (I love the name) should have allowed Samantha Powers to retract the `monster' comment, claiming it was off the record, when no off-the-record parameters had been set at the outset of the interview, is I think a matter of cultural differences between British and US journalists. Ms Peev was working to one set of rules, and Ms Powers was working to another. Situations like that are always a car-crash waiting to happen.
But I really do have to take exception with Tucker Carlson. His question, "Since journalistic standards in Great Britain are so much dramatically lower than they are here, it's a little much being lectured on journalistic ethics by a reporter from The Scotsman," really got my back up. I can't claim to be The Scotsman's greatest ally, but dammit, this overpaid, overcoiffed, smug berk has no right to say that about my trade. I love American journalism - some of the mightiest writing in the business has come from across the Pond - but I don't consider Tucker Carlson a worthy commentator. On the basis of this, the man's an idiot.
You can watch the whole exchange (and a coda in which another guest congratulates Tucker Carlson) here. I'll grant you, Gerri Peev doesn't come out of it entirely whiter than white - she seems to have omitted to ask some fairly obvious follow-up questions. But really, the affrontery of the man.
I think I'm going to be keeping an eye on Tucker Carlson, just to check on the quality of his journalism...
Post A Comment | 39 Comments | | Link






hutch0
User: hutch0
Date: 2008-03-09 22:24 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
I think the proper prepositon is `with,' although I'm sure Thog will be here soon to correct me. I just read Tucker Carlson's Wikipedia entry (that's how much the man annoyed me - I looked him up) and I give him points for publicly changing his stance on the Iraq war (although it might be a case of watching how the wind was blowing.) On the other hand, until I've seen more of his work, the Slate description of him as a smug Yuppie wiseass seems appropriate. I suspect he knows very little about British journalism. It's a long way from being perfect, but the standards are a lot higher than he seems to think.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



hutch0
User: hutch0
Date: 2008-03-09 22:31 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Actually, mentioning the Wikipedia entry, it tells of an incident back in 1999 when Tucker Carlson interviewed George W Bush - then Governor of Texas - for Talk magazine, and reported that Bush had mocked a Texas Death Row inmate and had `cursed like a sailor.'
Bush's commnications director, Karen Hughes, complained, saying it wasn't true. This is Tucker Carlson's response, as reported in Wikipedia:

"The reaction was: You betrayed us. Well, I was never there as a partisan to begin with. Then I heard that Karen Hughes accused me of lying. And so I called Karen and asked her why she was saying this, and she had this almost Orwellian rap that she laid on me about how things she'd heard — that I watched her hear — she in fact had never heard, and she'd never heard Bush use profanity ever. It was insane. I've obviously been lied to a lot by campaign operatives, but the striking thing about the way she lied was she knew I knew she was lying, and she did it anyway. There is no word in English that captures that. It almost crosses over from bravado into mental illness. They get carried away, consultants do, in the heat of the campaign, they're really invested in this. A lot of times they really like the candidate. That's all conventional. But on some level, you think, there's a hint of recognition that there is reality — even if they don't recognize reality exists — there is an objective truth. With Karen you didn't get that sense at all. A lot of people like her. A lot of people I know like her. I'm not one of them."

Seems to me that Tucker Carlson was there once himself, and has forgotten all about it.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



(no subject) - (Anonymous)
hutch0
User: hutch0
Date: 2008-03-09 23:53 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Fortunately, as an absolutely terrible journalist, this fate doesn't await me.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



(no subject) - (Anonymous)
(no subject) - (Anonymous)
hutch0
User: hutch0
Date: 2008-03-09 23:14 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Yes, well, of course, only about 99% of British journalism is of the nekkid girlie variety... ;-)
Personally, I think it's a shame that, even these days when it's no more difficult than typing a newspaper's name into Google, people don't read foreign papers. Okay, I do it for work, but I really enjoy checking out the New York Times and the Chicago Tribune and the LA Times, as well as CNN and Drudge. It gives me a better sense of what's going on in the States (and sometimes a more useful perspective on what's going on over here) than we get in the British media.
Jon Stewart's good, I like his work, but he's what we would consider over here to be a satirist. I haven't managed to catch Colbert yet. Didn't he announce he was running for President or something?
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



(no subject) - (Anonymous)
hutch0
User: hutch0
Date: 2008-03-09 23:30 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
You know, one day that's going to happen.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



(no subject) - (Anonymous)
hutch0
User: hutch0
Date: 2008-03-09 23:44 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
I had a soft spot for Fred Thompson. And I still have a soft spot for The Governator. Reagan, not so much.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



browse
the villages
the links
December 2013
the promo