Norah O'Donnell Goes After Jay Carney With Tough Questions

Ah, Norah. A reliably reflexive liberal know-nothing, endlessly promoted through the ranks simply because she had Beauty Queen looks.

Finally she interrogates an administration official fiercely.

There's a catch, of course. Norah O"Donnell of MSNBC and Chris Matthews' Spank Bank demands to know why Obama sold us out.

Beauty fades but stupid lingers.

Specifically, CBS’s Norah O’Donnell peppered Carney with terse, accusatory questions about the lack of tax revenue (read: tax increases) in the debt ceiling deal. O’Donnell complained about how many GOP demands were met by the deal, and then said to Carney: “You gave them everything they wanted and we got nothing.” That “we” is very telling. It was a tense moment in the room, and O’Donnell seemed to give voice to frustrated liberals who feel the deal gave significantly more to Republicans than Democrats, and included no tax increases–something President Obama had demanded be included for most of the negotiations.

There is an argument about whether that "we" is as telling as it seems -- some defend Norah O'Donnell, claiming at this part of her question, she was asking a question from the point of view of the deal's progressive critics, and not in her own voice, necessarily.

I'd make three points: First, she's got some emotion invested in this question. You can hear the frustration in her voice. I don't think she's a talented woman, so I don't think she's just conjuring up some channeled dramatic pitch here.

Second, it is telling, to me, how solicitous she is of the progressive caucus' concerns. Throughout this entire debt deal, I have heard again and again how Republicans' concerns are either illegitimate or possibly borderline, arguably legitimate but will simply have to be put aside for the good of the country; but note that when it comes to a progressive whine about tax increases, she's on board in trumpeting that complaint.

Because that complaint, you see, is objectively superior to the conservatives' complaint. It must be, because no objective reporter would otherwise behave as if it has been objectively determined that one side is objectively right and one side is objectively wrong.

Third, and this really is just a variation of the last one, but it's important: Throughout this we have heard the MFM scream at the tops of their lungs that conservatives must compromise their principles away, and be less willing to fight for their agenda, because compromise trumps conservative values.

But what's Norah O'Donnell's implication here? Liberals and liberals alone should have fought harder for their agenda.

I thought fighting for principles was bad, no? It turns out I've missed yet another nuance.

So, objectively, we can rank the three values here in objective order, and we know this is the proper prioritization of these values because objective reporters, who are completely objective, have objectively ranked them thus:

1. First priority: the progressive agenda

2. Second priority: compromising for "the good of the country"

3. Third and last, absolute-bottom-level priority: the conservative agenda

So, there you go, an objective explanation for this seeming inconsistency in the MFM's attitudes, reporting, questions, and advocacy.

It is objectively determined that Progressivism > Compromise > Conservatism.

That's not bias. That's just the objective truth, and you know that must be true, because the objective reporters in the media are telling you so.

Thanks to Slublog.

posted by Ace at 02:20 PM

| Access Comments