Caution: Pundits On This Network May Appear More Relevant Than They Are

Recently, while interviewing Senator Bernie Sanders about healthcare, CNN's Wolf Blitzer quoted Karl Rove and then asked the Senator for his opinion. Sanders' response was one I've been hoping to hear from somebody for years. Enjoy it with me.

"Oh, my goodness. Well, I mean, the credibility of Karl Rove, who was Bush's guy for eight years, leaves something to be desired. In my humble opinion, George Bush will go down in history as one of the worst presidents we've ever had. And he was advised ably in that regard by Karl Rove. So, what Rove says isn't terribly important to me."

Thank you, Senator Sanders. You said what so many others in the public eye have had the opportunity to say, but have not.

Even if we set aside the lustrous job titles Rove's had over the years, certainly at this point in time his opinions have less value than ever. He's never been elected to anything. And, thankfully, he's not on the public payroll any longer. He's on Rupert Murdoch's payroll now. He's been hired as a Fox consultant. Apparently, that means that if the usual Fox talking heads can't find a way to put the current administration in a bad enough light, they call Karl.

When Rove gives an "in depth" interview to a fawning Sean Hannity, don't listen. When he's sharing his "expertise" with his falsely objective acolyte, Bill O'Reilly, don't watch. Karl "The Architect" Rove never designed anything other than a way to help elect George Bush and Dick Cheney. For that alone he should be too ashamed to show his face in public. But, of course, that's why Fox loves him. So, come on, let's all join hands and ignore him.

And while we're at it, let's identify a few other false prophets who should be ignored until they go away.

Dick Cheney's no longer the president so there's no good reason to listen to him. He won't go away on his own, but we can encourage him by not paying attention. We can opt to quit listening to his fear mongering and watching his sneering platitudes. And if you want to know where not to look, go no further on the dial than where he appears the most often. Fox.

Liz Cheney's never been elected to anything either. Oh, yes, she did have a job in the State Department that coincided with her father's tenure, but shouldn't that tell us something? Now she's out there being paid attention to by a media so starved for experts that she's become one. Don't fall for it. She's not an expert. She's her father's daughter and that's all she is. And where does she appear the most often? Fox.

Newt Gingrich is no longer the Speaker of the House. In my opinion he's merely a wannabe candidate for President in 2012. He has absolutely no power unless we keep regarding him as if he does. Personally, I think he's a hypocritical political opportunist and I don't care about his thoughts on anything. Please join me. But if you disagree, tune in to the network on which he appears the most often. Fox.

Let's also use our remotes to send the message that the opinions of the likes of Tom Delay, Rick Santorum, David Vitter and the ever-smarmy Rudy Giuliani are not news. (That's right, Rudy, your political career's at the point where you don't even rate your own paragraph in this little blog post.) The opinions of these people don't matter. It's no surprise that Fox keeps talking to them, but we don't have to participate.

Yet Fox is popular. No doubt about that. But make no mistake -- they're not an objective news network. At best, they're a conduit for conservatives. At worst, they're purveyors of hatred toward liberals. Just look to whom they turn for expert opinions. To paraphrase the esteemed Senator from Vermont -- what they say isn't terribly important.

(And before you point it out, allow me -- the more liberal networks like MSNBC have their pundits, too. Some have served, others only comment. To be sure, they strain their words through their own opinions and biases. But you know what the difference is? They don't lace their comments with fear and hate.)

Comments

[Richard Jones 2]

You know what they say about opinions..­.everybody has one, or at least those who are passionate about something in their lives. I can get very opinionated about a good meal, movie, bowel movement, music, acting, girl on girl action, and so forth, but not about the news or politics. Why? The news is always the same...boring. Occasionally the news reports something monumental that affects us all -- OMG, Adam is gay! But most of the time you can make a copy and play/read it every night and be none the poorer for it.

Now politics, there is an even a bigger waster of time and energy. I should know, I played at lobbyist in DC for two years and what did I learn? Voters are fickle and politicians will say/promise anything to get elected. The truth is most of them do a decent job, at least the best they can in a convoluted system that rarely allows any individual to make a difference, even the President. In my few years on this earth, my opinion is anything the government gets involved with gets screwed up. Less is more fellows, so take another break and let our society straighten itself out.

[Dave Hackel - Huffpost Blogger]

I completely understand the points you're making. I do. But if we all sit back and wait for society to straighten itself out, the problem is that there are always a few who won't sit back. They'll use the lull in the action to lobby for their points of view. If we agree with them -- fine. But I guarantee that someone you disagree with will grab the bullhorn and you'll feel as though your views are not being heard. And then you'll jump back into the action. At least I think you would. I know I would. Am I crazy? Probably. But I don't want us to find ourselves at a point in the future where we can rightly be accused of sitting back and not even trying.

[audiodramatist]

It's quite simple: Most people, especially my fellow Americans, love a - Fight!!!
Anytime opponents can be set and folks come out swinging, the microphones and cameras swing toward the ruckus.
And if a one on one can be done (witness the current theDave v theGov) it's even better.
This is us.
Anybody want to change? All you have to do is, yes, change the channel or better still, do what my grandmother always advised: ignore the ignorant.

[Dave Hackel - Huffpost Blogger]

Your grandmother's advice is probably the best. But I guess I just can't talk myself out of the notion that the ignorant don't have to stay that way. They can learn. But they sure don't seem to, do they.

[Girl28]

Great post! I think cable news is killing journalism. It's all about filling that 24hr news cycle even if you're filling it with sensationalistic fake garbage. I had to stop watching it all together, and CNN is the worst. At least at Fox everyone knows what they're about, the people at CNN actually still believe that they are a credible news organization. I think republicans have been talking about the "elite liberal media" for so long that CNN has bought into it. They go out of their way to demonstrate that ridiculous fake balance. However, if the republican point of view for the day is backwards, ridiculous, and completely out of touch with reality, why are you repeating those talking points as if they're legitimate? What a joke. I watch PBS news now. It's really great, they talk to real experts about real news topics. It's not just a republican and a democrat yelling talking points at each other, engaging in pointless conversation on a bridge to nowhere.

[propitiousmoment]

While I agree with you that the republican pov is mainly backwards, ridiculous, and completely out of touch with reality, I remember being (for some reason) the most liberal person in my family, an anomaly really, from my teen years on. And I remember the way my positions were ridiculed and denigrated, and in fact that the media at that time largely marginalized the left as ridiculous and out of touch, not something to be taken seriously. But of course it was not and is not. So I would not refuse to give them the chance to air their ridiculous, backward, out of touch views along with balanced, reality-based opinions so that people can be fully informed about what's out there and make up their own minds. But I do agree that television news these days (post fairness-doctrine era) is just a lot of idiots yelling pointlessly at each other, a big waste of time if you want real information.

[bmiller360]

What I find to my constant amazement, is the large cadre of Palin, Rove, Cheney, Fox, etc, etc followers that I know to be highly educated, respected, intelligent people. What could they be thinking when they defend these extreme, mindless positions that are spewed daily on Faux News by these hateful, harmful fear-mongers? I listen to people I know personally, who should know better, who go along with this insanity, and all I can do is try to get past my own "trout look" and attempt to wonder "what could they possibly be seeing that I'm not?" I guess I must come to the conclusion that lucidity and common sense can be quite elusive, sometimes...

[lglglg]

I know Fox TV and Rush are "popular", but with whom? Are their shows larded with Shamwow and trade-you-gold-for cash spots or repectable advertisers? Take a look at the advertisers on the talking-head shows on Sunday. You get airlines, investment firms, computer companies and the like; no get-out-of­-debt-with­out-harmin­g-your-cre­dit-score spots (except on the local stations...another story).

[Leoneski]

Even though I know I should, I can't stomach listening to Rush or Fox. It makes my blood boil. I appreciate you doing the the dirty work for me and making me laugh while I read their latest balloney. Keep it up!

[Dave Hackel - Huffpost Blogger]

It's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it. And, believe me, I'm looking for my replacement. Thanks for taking the time to read and post.

[PeregrineBoy]

Hackel's point is spot-on. I tend to think that the more highly-contrasted the pundits and the 24-hour 'news' entertainment's neo-celebrities are in their perspectives the better. Bring on the Roves, the Hannitys, the Carvels, and all the other biased and impassioned talking heads so that 'We The People' can clearly recognize the extremists among us. Through the sometimes slow and painful process of evaluating extremes I believe the American public will continue to be handed the inevitable moderate, thoughtful, and undoubtedly compromised and watered-down policies on the most critical issues that shape the country's future. Overall, taking the long view, it's a good thing I suppose.

[Dave Hackel - Huffpost Blogger]

So your take is to just let the pundits "out" themselves as inconsequential extremists. I like it. The wait might kill us, but I like it.

[JHerschel]

I stopped listening to Fox years ago and then one by one I stopped listening to the other major news networks. I know a lie when I hear one. Lately it seems the only place to get the real news is on Comedy Central. How sad.

[LABC]

ain't that the truth...

[Doug1000X1]

Robert Heinlein wrote that most humor comes from making fun of others. You are convincing. Wikipedia makes me question Carl Rove and Bush's administration.

[DHRice]

One of the cornerstones of our constitution is that an informed public is necessary to a democracy. Never did Madison, Hamilton, Jefferson or Jay imagine what would pass for “information” in the future. The great dystopic novels warned of book burning and thought control. This future is more frightening. No one needs to ban books, nobody cares to read anyhow. We can just tune in to Fox; No dictator needs to gag truth, they just need to control the conversation (and call it “fair and balanced”). Why does Rush spew his outrageous nonsense? Because it is entertaining. Why is Rove so successful at what he does? Because it is so easy. In the words of Pogo, “We have met the enemy and he is us”. I agree, Dave, America needs to tune these guys out .

[Dave Hackel - Huffpost Blogger]

I hate it when the comments to my posts are so much more literate than the posts themselves. Thanks so much for taking the time to write such a thoughtful response.

[propitiousmoment]

I'd be more likely to say that Rush gets an audience because he validates his listeners' xenophobia and other hateful traits, it puffs them up to listen to them because he states with an air of authority that all of their worst impulses are correct.

[DHRice]

Well, that too...

[Thelma Richards]

I thoroughly agree with you Mr. Hackel. I refuse to listen anymore to what these pundits have to say. they are very good at distorting the truth and it boggles my mind that so many people watch this network. I turn on Fox News every once in a while to see what they are saying, but I cannot stomach their lies and/or half truths for very long. i particularly agree with your last paragraph. I have reached the same conclusion as to the difference between Fox and MSNBC, and it is wonderful to hear somone else vocalize it.

[Dave Hackel - Huffpost Blogger]

That's exactly what I do, Thelma. I tune in Fox to see what they're putting out there. It's interesting watch Fox, hear their pundits' opinions, then listen as they're quoted throughout the day as though they're facts. "What do you think, Karl" morphs into "Karl Rove says" which somehow becomes a fact in a story later in the day. And the sad thing is -- it's working for them.

[Thelma Richards]

Yes it is working for them at the moment. Jerry Springer was popular for a while too, but people got tired of it. I'm hoping the same thing happens to Fox. I can't tell you the number of times i have tuned in to Fox (or even conservative shows on the radio here in San Antonio, Texas) and they have said something that sounds real bad and when I get home and listen to MSNBC, Olbermann or Maddow will put it into perspective and tell the "whole" story and then it sounds so different. I think a half-truth is sometimes worse than an out-and-out lie. Say what you will about Olbermann and his rants at times, but I trust him more than anyone at Fox.

[Doug1000X1]

Cheney says changing interrogation methods puts the U.S. at greater risk. Is that the kind of 'fact' you are would object to? The so-called fact is the reason Cheney objects to changing interrogation techniques. The 'fact' scares people into agreeing.

[Doug1000X1]

More 'facts' were presented by Glenn Beck. "Adolph Hitler and the Nazi Party were "leftwing"; that "political correctness" led the committed white supremacist, James Von Brunn, to shoot a security guard at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC; and that ultimately President Barack Obama is the one responsible for the violence because his "bailouts" and "Socialistic" policies are engendering widespread anger." -From poster, Joseph Palermo.

[blaqntelligence]

""Oh, my goodness. Well, I mean, the credibility of Karl Rove, who was Bush's guy for eight years, leaves something to be desired. In my humble opinion, George Bush will go down in history as one of the worst presidents we've ever had. And he was advised ably in that regard by Karl Rove. So, what Rove says isn't terribly important to me."

I understand Toxic Noise trying to make these criminals relevant, what I DON'T understand is what-I-tho­ught-were-­credible-n­ews-outlet­s falling for their hype.
CNN asking anyone to comment on the thoughts of a karl rove, dick cheney, liz, cheney, the interviews, hanging on to, and regurgitating, their every word is the #1 reason I've stopped watching.

[Dave Hackel - Huffpost Blogger]

Excellent point. You nailed it! The problem doesn't start and stop with Fox. It's that CNN, MSNBC -- all of them -- they quote the nonsense and proclaim it to be news. It's like the kids' game of telephone. The information changes to gain importance, as needed.

[DHRice]

Am I tired of pundits interviewing themselves with their own questions? Of course I am.