An accidentally revealing moment fromRachel Maddow’s interview with Martin Indyk of the Brookings Institution last night (MSNBC, 1/31/11):
MADDOW: Well, let me ask you about one tactical question in this diplomatic dance, I guess. Are American officials making appearances on Arabic language TV channels at this point? Should they be prioritizing doing that right now?
INDYK: Probably. I don’t think they are doing a lot of that at the moment, partly because the Arab interviewers are likely to be a lot more pressing than polite people like you.
MADDOW: I think that is a great insult, thank you.
INDYK: No, that was meant as a compliment.
So why are apologists like Indyk on a supposed “progressive” program? Don’t they get enough ink and airtime via the corpress?
Aren’t there other folks out there who can provide an honest analysis of the situation? Shouldn’t they be getting far more exposure than they do?
So why is that? And I’m not speaking solely about mainstream media. A look at DEMOCRACY NOW!’s guest list, for example, reveals a not-insubstantial predilection for corpress and academic establishment types.
Granted, these persons might have some useful intel, but every time they appear, someone who has more to offer doesn’t, right?
And isn’t showcasing alternative voices part of the mission of the “alternative media”?
the new owners are showing their muscle. no more liberals times at maddow. probably why olberman left.
I have to admit that I personally am not a fan of the talk-show format, especially in terms of gaining political or cultural insights – – – the personal interaction between the personalities is too distracting and often self-limiting (I’m categorically exempting right-wing shout-fests like O’Reilly or most of the Fox programs because they are ultimately just crude ‘confirmation’ exercises designed to make acolytes feel good about their existing views, with only cursory, insincere attempts at evenhandedness). This becomes even MORE magnified when the two personalities are on the opposite side of the issue, such as this example above. When the political/cultural/social differences are MAJOR, then seldom can the interviewer/guest speak candidly, ESPECIALLY IF he/she wants the guest (OR someone of similar political standing) back on their show (or vice-versa) – – – they can’t say something like “The vast reading/experience that I’ve had in the world indicates to me that your point-of-view is originating from a mean/twisted basis and will NOT solve anything but will only bring more harm and misery to the world”. If said, it will quickly devolve into a simple schoolyard argument, and what’s the point in watching something like that (and all of ‘reality’ TV, for that matter)? It’s not like your going to see clever banter, ala Oscar Wilde or even a good sitcom.
I find written articles/books or speeches about a specific topic are much more useful. One can calmly read and digest the ideas, weighing them for believability, applicability, etc at your own pace without reacting (perhaps even unconsciously) to the mannerisms or appearance of a person making them.
Yes, it was a great insult.
@ Big Em:
For an example of a truly good interviewer, you should watch Frost Over the World on Al Jazeera. David Frost once upon a time was an Entertainment Tonight fanboy, but he has vastly improved his interview technique. He is well-researched and his questions are pointed without being adversarial. Thus his interviewees are often very candid and revealing of their intentions.
For panel discussions, Christiane Amanpour (ABC) did a brilliant job in her recent mini-series on the “9/11 mosque” question a couple of weeks ago.
Then again, these are top-notch people at the height of their game, with management that seems to care about the content of their shows, a rare thing given today’s corporate media.
What about The Real News Network, originally out of Canada, but now with offices in D.C.? Their interviews are great!
Two faux news “liberals” outting Each OTHER.
Ok. Now that we know the ‘pressing’ an interviewer is, the more impolite he or she is, and that is one of the reasons (talking to impolite interviewers), what are the other reasons?
I think he got away with it.
Indyk meant by her comment -that it would not be helpful for American officials to sit in on some of these American “attack fests”that are as common as camel dung in that part of the world, therefore handing validity to their views.She used the word pressing- to be polite.
I wish we still got CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corp.), but our carrier DirecTV sold its slot to Al Gore’s Current TV, which is mindless at best, corporate sell out at worst.
While I do not disagree with manyof teh comments that are in place here, I have another take on it. Is there a single Jewish man in America who is going to be for democracy in the muslim countries? I don’t think so. They have all had brainectomies performed by the Israilis.
Lawrence…You are asking if American Jews want Democracy to take hold in muslim middle eastern countries…And you feel they do not.Im at a loss to what your logic or point is.
Do any of you FOX “news” believers realize that we use Arabic numerals?