Bill Maher Disses The Daily Show Rally for Sanity

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Last night, Bill Maher criticized last week's Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear, saying, "If you're going to have a rally: you might as well make it about something," before detailing his specific problems with Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert's efforts. I think some of what Maher observes as shortcomings with the rally are completely valid, especially this idea there is craziness on both sides of the aisle. And even Jon Stewart told Chris Wallace last week, MSNBC can't come close to doing what Fox News is able to do.

“Try not to pretend the insanity is equally distributed through both parties. Keith Olbermann is right: he is not the equivalent of Glenn Beck. One reports facts, the other is very close to playing with his own poop. And the big mistake of modern media, has been this notion of balance for balance's sake. That the Left is just as violent and cruel as the Right, that unions are just as powerful as corporations, that reverse racism is just as bad as racism. The message of the rally, as I heard it, was that, if the media stopped giving voice to the crazies on both sides, then maybe we could restore sanity. It was all nonpartisan and urged cooperation with the moderates on the other side -- forgetting that Obama tried that and found out: there are no moderates on the other side. When Jon announced his rally, he said the national conversation was dominated by people on the Right who believe Obama’s a Socialist and people on the Left who believe 9/11’s an inside job, but I can’t name any Democratic leaders who think 9/11’s an inside job. But Republican leaders who think Obama’s a Socialist? All of them.”

Video will not embed. Clicky here.

Comments

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

But then it's an invalid point (to the degree of hyperbole) so possibly it was not missed but ignored. (granting that Maher gets my ire up, and so I'm not a disinterested observer)

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

It's not to ignore the point, it's question begging. Maher's argues "Evenhandedness is inappropriate here" If the response is "your argument is illegitimate because you're not being evenhanded", it's to respond by assuming exactly the answer to the question under discussion.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

I think there ought to be a rule, either you intellectuals have to make things more clear to me, or I shouldn't be allowed to participate ;)
Seriously, I had to read your comment 4 times before I understood what you were getting at (I think) but you are correct. On the other hand his argument that that trying for a semblance of even handedness is bad, especially given his hyperbolic examples is inappropriate and came off like a petty screed. Of course that is in the ear of the listener, and the reason why I rarely watch/listen to him, as he always comes off that way to me...FWIW so does Beck, another person I rarely watch/listen to.

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

Well, I actually really like Maher, but I can understand someone finding him grating. It's a legitimate complaint. I'm just saying that to respond to Maher's argument against evenhandedness by saying, "you're not sufficiently evenhanded" comes across as circular.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

And you would be correct :D

whew, I'm glad I understood after all :D