Juan Williams Is Funny

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Thu Nov 15, 2007 at 10:03:13 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Working for Fox and its deleterious effects. It makes you blind. Case in point, Juan Williams:

The fact is that (Moulitsas is) not a journalist in terms of someone who knows how to do reporting, someone who reflects balance in what he portrays. To the contrary, he engages in the kind of hyperbole and extreme statements that are represented by that crass and I think offensive statement that he made about those dead people. But you know what? I think that’s just what’s going on in journalism. I think that there’s more and more opinion, less and less people who know how to do the job. All you gotta do is shout, say something on the blog that offends and attacks the other side and suddenly you have the credentials and you’re said to be a journalist. I think it’s a great lie.”

Setting aside that Juan Williams has no idea what Daily Kos is about, does Juan know what Fox News is? Bill O'Reilly Juan? What a ridiculous fool he is.

< Dodd Still Leading Fight Against Telco Amnesty | Tonight's Democratic Debate >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Juan Williams Is Funny | 47 comments (47 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Fawn Williams (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by Kalkaino on Thu Nov 15, 2007 at 10:26:19 AM EST

The great lie is that Williams is still a journalist. The Foxanganda dollar is to journalism what the Tijuana $20 is to chastity.

"Journalists" in glass houses. . . (5.00 / 3) (#2)
by andgarden on Thu Nov 15, 2007 at 10:34:15 AM EST

Not so naive (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Al on Thu Nov 15, 2007 at 11:09:37 AM EST

does Juan know what Fox News is? Bill O'Reilly Juan?

Oh, he knows. This is not foolishness, it's deliberate deception.

The man is a dirty liar, not a fool, and he has a huge audience who believes him.

: I disagree (5.00 / 0) (#11)
by manys on Thu Nov 15, 2007 at 04:40:28 PM EST

You know, I don't think any of these tards are consciously deceiving. I think they're professional myopics, who have cultivated their skills to not even see other points of view. They have too much clarity. What the talk shows do is collect a few of them per episode based on how coherent or apposite the individual's perspectives are to each other. On the other hand you have the McLaughlin Group, which is an inexplicable presence.

That is funny. (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by Geekesque on Thu Nov 15, 2007 at 11:21:46 AM EST

I almost wonder if it was deliberate.

Almost.

FYI to Juan (5.00 / 3) (#5)
by Joe Bob on Thu Nov 15, 2007 at 12:50:42 PM EST

Markos Moulitsas has a BA in Journalism.

Just sayin'.

: But does he have a BA in BS? (5.00 / 4) (#8)
by kovie on Thu Nov 15, 2007 at 02:32:25 PM EST

Which is the only thing that Fox considers to be legitimate journalistic credentials.
I not only stopped watching Fox years ago, but deleted it from my TV's lineup so I don't accidentally tune to it while channel surfing. It literally causes brain damage to be subjected to it for even a second, like running the microwave with the door off. There are literally millions of Americans who regularly watch Fox who are likely permanently brain damaged by it. Quite scary, looking forward.

Does Juan know who Kos has been paired with? (5.00 / 3) (#6)
by Molly Bloom on Thu Nov 15, 2007 at 02:17:10 PM EST

Turd Blossom!

What ya got to say now Juan?

: Easy peasy Newsweeksy (none / 0) (#12)
by manys on Thu Nov 15, 2007 at 04:42:58 PM EST

Newsweek is attempting a political synthesis by equating a disgraced official with a lauded blogger. The key will be who has the moral highground even if they don't play off each other. It'll be good practice for Kos though, for sure.

He doth project too much (5.00 / 2) (#7)
by kovie on Thu Nov 15, 2007 at 02:28:05 PM EST

But you know what? I think that's just what's going on in journalism. I think that there's more and more opinion, less and less people who know how to do the job. All you gotta do is shout, say something on the blog that offends and attacks the other side and suddenly you have the credentials and you're said to be a journalist. I think it's a great lie.

Substitute the word "faux news outlet" for "blog", and this is PRECISELY what Williams is doing here--along with, of course, literally everyone else at Fox. He is expressing his opinion, not fact, NOT doing his job as a journalist, is in fact shouting, offending, attacking and lying, and yet considers these to be his journalistic credentials. Who's full of it, Juan?

And he has no idea, I'm sure, that Kos has actually worked as a paid journalist before. And lawyer. And tech industry professional. And soldier. And independant businessman and entrepreneur. And book co-author. So who's the fake, Juan?

Oh, and by the way, a minor peeve but one that I think indicates the lack of true journalistic qualifications that Williams actually has. The proper wording above would be "fewer and fewer people", not "less and less people". The rule is "fewer" for discrete entities that can be individually counted (e.g. fewer people), and "less" for general entities that cannot (e.g. less BS). A real journalist would know this. A fake one would likely not. Of course a real journalist wouldn't have anything to do with a fake news outlet like Fox.

Amazing what detritus, jetsam and flotsam winds up at Fox.

What most of you are doing is confusing (1.00 / 2) (#13)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 15, 2007 at 07:05:33 PM EST

"journalist" with "columnist." "Journalist" is a ten dollar word for "reporters" caused by title inflation. Remember that pilots became Captains and co-pilots First Officers. Salesmen became Account Executives and garbage collectors Sanitation Engineers.

The people cpinva refer to are columnists, as is Markos, Juan Cole and a host of others on both sides of the fence.

People who write columns have a known point of view and are required to be entertaining enough to cause people to read/watch them. They are published on the editorial/opinion sections and seem on "talking head" shows instead of hard news.

Reporters/journalists are required to report the facts. And are published in the hard news sections or seen on the hard news broadcasts.

Columnists are required to write columns.

Markos has demonstrated he is capable of writing a column/blog that some find entertaining. Rove has not, but perhaps he will.

If neither is entertaining, or able to capture an audience of sufficient size, they will be gone.

Meanwhile (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by scarshapedstar on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 04:08:01 AM EST

"Reporters/journalists are required to report the facts."

Then why did Fox News, a supposed journalistic institution, claim in court that they have a constitutional right to lie?


Why???? (1.00 / 1) (#17)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 08:28:28 AM EST

And why did.... was it CBS??? try and use a sting re porno in the Dallas area?? Rather's attempt to throw the 2004 election with a fake memo??

And why do you attack Fox when my comment had nothing to do with who was bad and who was good, just a mere definition of columnists/talking heads vs reporters/journalists.

Once you figure out the bias of Bill O'Reilly then you should be able to listen to what he says and gain some information from it. Same with Coulter. Same on the other side with Juan Cole, etc.

It is when you start thinking of a "columnist" as a keeper of truth that you get into trouble.


Erm... (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by scarshapedstar on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 01:27:04 PM EST

"Attacking" Fox with their own words? Wow. That's really through the looking glass. You make it sound like they should be somehow ashamed of their bold argument that journalists have the right to distort information! Why would anyone want to run away from that? If it's good enough for the FCC then it's good enough to shout from the rooftops. "Fox News: Lying Unapologetically Since 2003!"

Anyway, as to why I mentioned Fox, did you even watch the clip? Juan Williams bemoaning the lack of fairness and balance that Kos represents, to Sean Hannity on Fox News... it's like Ed Gein and Ted Bundy chattering about how boys today need to learn how to treat a lady. It's self-parody.


: If you can lay aside your bias (1.00 / 1) (#25)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 07:31:03 PM EST

and read what I wrote you will see that I merely pointed out that columnists can not be depended upon because they are expected to have an opinion and point of view.
Reporters are expected to be factual. That they are not is a failure.
As for comparing Hannity and KOS, why bother??? They are both on the same coin, just opposite sides.

Yup (none / 0) (#14)
by Repack Rider on Thu Nov 15, 2007 at 10:34:19 PM EST

Markos has had plenty of writing practice and already has a loyal audience that visits his site half a million times a day. Rove has zero writing track record, and some 80% of the country doesn't like him.

Without a single entry on his writing resume, it's hard to imagine what Karl Rove brought to the table that got him a job. Kos will eat him alive.


Matters not (1.00 / 0) (#16)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 08:11:13 AM EST

Uh.... and Air America is a success? heh

This is a brand new game. And remember. The judgment is based on audience, and audience is based on entertainment... Policy wonks won't feed the bulldog.


Title goes here (5.00 / 3) (#18)
by Repack Rider on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 09:46:15 AM EST

Air America is a success?

It certainly appears to be on my radio, where Rush is broadcast on a low-wattage signal way at the end of the dial and AAR sits right in the middle and comes in really strong.

Oh, and Markos has that DEGREE in journalism (and one in law) to go along with the millions of words he has put in the public eye over the last five years. Kos personally revolutionized online political activism and in the process BURIED the right-wing blogs to the point where it would take five or six of them to match his daily readership. It seems unlikely that any columnist in a print medium entered with credentials as glowing as Markos'.

Meanwhile, Rove has... Entertainment value. Gosh, that's what the country needs. </sarcasm>

I look forward to Kos and Rove in a debate. The most entertaining thing Rove could do is self-immolate on TV, with Kos handing him the Zippo. </metaphor>


uh ..... If you want to claim (1.00 / 0) (#19)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 01:14:20 PM EST

Air America is more successful than Limbaugh...

well...

And the fact that Markos has a degree in Journalism is meaningless. That by itself would help him in get an entry level job at a newspaper...but as I said.

Your desire for Markos to physically harm Rove is typical.


Metaphor is an actual word: (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by jondee on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 01:22:52 PM EST

maybe you should look it up, Jim.


Oh really?? (1.00 / 2) (#22)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 06:03:35 PM EST

Perhaps you can show me a dictionary link that applies to:

The most entertaining thing Rove could do is self-immolate on TV, with Kos handing him the Zippo.

as a metaphor.

Repack wrote what he wrote. What it says that he would be entertained if Rove burned himself alive on TV with Markos providing the trigger.

That is a very disturbing suggestion.


Given your well documented love of physical abuse (5.00 / 2) (#23)
by Molly Bloom on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 06:53:38 PM EST

I am surprised RE-pack's metaphor bothers you.


heh (1.00 / 2) (#26)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 07:36:28 PM EST

Given your ability to manufacture things that are inaccurate, I am not surprised at any comment you make.

Tell me. Do you think Rove should be burned alive??

No? How about this??

How do we get rid of the rest of them? (1.00 / 2) (#7)
by maheanuu on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 08:54:27 AM EST
Perhaps Rat Poison might work, but then even a rat wouldn't be as bad as the repigs in office today

I am not the one who approves of physical abuse (5.00 / 3) (#29)
by Molly Bloom on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 08:32:26 PM EST

you are. Your position is well documented.


I reject your claim. (1.00 / 2) (#30)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 08:50:50 PM EST

And your attempt to smear.


Its your position. (5.00 / 3) (#37)
by Molly Bloom on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 10:40:17 PM EST

Don't complain to me, if it is an ugly one.


Tell you that you are knowingly making (1.00 / 1) (#42)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 10:48:44 PM EST

an untrue claim is not a complaint.


: Dude you have endorsed water-boarding (5.00 / 1) (#46)
by Molly Bloom on Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 08:42:28 AM EST

which is physical abuse many times on this blog. If you are going to say it, say it loud and say it proud. Don't be a weasel about it.
Don't complain to me about your position.

BTW (1.00 / 1) (#33)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 09:01:07 PM EST

Does Repack's comment bother you??

And can you show how it is a metaphor??

1. a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance, as in "A mighty fortress is our God." Compare mixed metaphor, simile (def. 1).
2. something used, or regarded as being used, to represent something else; emblem; symbol.
A figure of speech in which a word or phrase that ordinarily designates one thing is used to designate another, thus making an implicit comparison, as in "a sea of troubles" or "All the world's a stage" (Shakespeare).
One thing conceived as representing another; a symbol: "Hollywood has always been an irresistible, prefabricated metaphor for the crass, the materialistic, the shallow, and the craven" (Neal Gabler).
1533, from M.Fr. metaphore, from L. metaphora, from Gk. metaphora "a transfer," especially of the sense of one word to a different word, lit. "a carrying over," from metapherein "transfer, carry over," from meta- "over, across" (see meta-) + pherein "to carry, bear" (see infer).
a figure of speech in which an expression is used to refer to something that it does not literally denote in order to suggest a similarity

Your turn.


You Prove Repack meant anything but a metaphor (5.00 / 0) (#38)
by Molly Bloom on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 10:41:27 PM EST

follow carefully (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by tnthorpe on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 11:14:18 PM EST

to self-immolate is a way of expressing an idiomatic term, "to go up in flames." It is a metaphor for causing one's self to fail spectacularly. Now, his dialogue with Kos will be the occasion for that public self-destruction, so Kos hands him the Zippo, i.e. provides the opportunity for Rove to publicly fail. No actual flames are harmed and any exchange Rove is part of is likely to produce more heat than light anyhow.


Nonsense (1.00 / 1) (#41)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 10:47:27 PM EST

Repack has specifically stated that he would be entertained if Rove burned himself to death.

Your attempt to claim it is all in good clean literary fun doesn't work.


: no (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by tnthorpe on Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 12:34:39 AM EST

he clearly flagged it as a metaphor.
Read the post.
You're just being silly now.

Maybe you'll find this (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by Edger on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 07:02:50 PM EST

more entertaining, ppj. Crack a beer. Put your feet up.

Get comfortable.


It's called war (1.00 / 2) (#27)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 07:41:16 PM EST

Edger.

Nasty, mean and all that stuff.

Kinda reminds me of watching the twin towers burn or the USS Arizona flip over on its side or London firefighters fight blazes.

Tell me Edger.

Do you have a video of the people jumping out the windows of the twin towers to certain death?

No? Well, if you abhor violence... why not?


It's called (5.00 / 2) (#28)
by Edger on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 07:49:48 PM EST

burning defensless people alive, ppj. Look real close, you'll love it. You can see all those kids running around melting. With Rove's face in the background.

Want some popcorn?


You seem to forget (1.00 / 2) (#31)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 08:52:19 PM EST

9/11.

Try and remember.. Nice day, early morning... airplanes.

Tell me Edger. Why don't you ever show any disapproval of the terrorist's actions??


But...but...but... (5.00 / 2) (#32)
by Edger on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 08:56:45 PM EST

I do my best to condemn you and Bush and Cheney and all the neocons and their murderous foreign policies for the past 50 odd years that caused 9/11 every day here, ppj.

Did I miss a day?


Ah yes (1.00 / 1) (#34)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 09:03:56 PM EST

You believe it is America that is evil. All those little Echimans got what they deserved, eh?? Well, burning buildings do make powerful ovens.

Thanks. I'll make sure to let you see that one again and again.


America? (5.00 / 3) (#40)
by Edger on Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 12:37:51 AM EST

No, ppj. That is a flat out malicious lie. And you know that is a flat out malicious lie. But you have no qualms about uttering flat out malicious lies do you? Especially when you know you'll be called on your flat out malicious lies.

It's you and Bush and Cheney and all the neocons and their murderous foreign policies for the past 50 years. As I said.

Not America.


You wrote what you wrote. (1.00 / 1) (#43)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 10:54:15 PM EST

I do my best to condemn you and Bush and Cheney and all the neocons and their murderous foreign policies for the past 50 odd years that caused 9/11 every day here, ppj.
Did I miss a day?

In the past 50 years we have had a rather large mixture of political leaders and parties. I think it is obvious that is so inclusive that it can be nothing but "America" that you are claiming is responsible for 9/11.

Enjoy. You'll get a chance to explain it again and again. I'll even provide the complete comment.


: Heh! What an idiot. (5.00 / 1) (#45)
by Edger on Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 04:58:49 AM EST

You're intent on smearing yourself and making yourself look stupid aren't you?
Be my guest! :-)

Neither you, nor Bush nor Cheney nor the Neocons (5.00 / 2) (#47)
by Molly Bloom on Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 08:50:59 AM EST

are America. What Hubris!


You want bias? Here it is. (1.00 / 0) (#35)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 09:34:54 PM EST

By Erin P. Billings
Roll Call Staff
Friday, Nov. 16, 2007; 12:35 pm
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has decided to keep the chamber in session over the Thanksgiving break to block President Bush from making any unsavory recess appointments while Senators are out of town.

Now a reporter wouldn't write that because it clearly indicates a strong bias and has no factual basis.

What you call Mr. Billings I have no idea. Reporter? Columnist? Blogger?

: unsavory goings on (5.00 / 0) (#36)
by tnthorpe on Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 10:01:19 PM EST

during Thanksgiving recess?
Sounds like a joke to me. Are reporters not allowed a little sly humor?

last time i checked (none / 0) (#9)
by cpinva on Thu Nov 15, 2007 at 03:04:26 PM EST

(and i'm sure you'll correct me if i'm wrong), o'reilly isn't a "journalist", any more than is hannity, beck, limbaugh, coulter, et al. of course, neither are most of the "journalists" on fox ("fair and balanced, 'cause we say so!") "news", they just pretend to be.

that, and .50, will get you a small coffee at 7/11. maybe, depending on the sales tax.

actually, the major flaw in mr. williams assessment, is that journalists are required to be "fair and balanced" (some are pretty damn unbalanced!), they aren't. what they are required to be is factual, regardless of how the chips fall.

they are required to accurately report the facts, quotes, etc. where they aren't able to provide an actual legitimate source, they are required to disclose that. they are required to disclose any potential conflict of interest they may have, with regards to a story, or (preferably) recuse themselves entirely from it.

they are required to do all of these things, but being "fair and balanced" isn't among them. sometimes, there is no "balance", something is just flat out wrong. mussolini was a murderous dictator, period. making the trains run on time doesn't "balance" that out.

Too many fools in the media. (none / 0) (#10)
by Lora on Thu Nov 15, 2007 at 03:58:13 PM EST

They are foolish like a FOX.