Quote of the Day

This entire article:

The Huffington Post: "Vote Against Obama in Iowa" by Cenk Uygur/12.29.11

I wanted to pick just one part of it, but I couldn't -- the whole thing is so deliciously, laugh-out-loud stupid.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Cenk Uygur. At least now we finally know for sure that the reason he talks like he has marbles in his mouth is that he's fucking retarded.

Current Events

Well, this is pretty much the least surprising news item ever.

The Huffington Post: Cenk Uygur Heading To Current TV/9.20.11

Here's the thing: I respect Cenk and what he's done with "The Young Turks" on the web and there are times when I definitely wonder if I was too hard on him during his short-lived run on MSNBC. I stand firmly behind the comments I made when he decided to go out in a blaze of glory at the network -- namely that while he had reason to hold his head high for sticking to his convictions, he really couldn't complain if MS thought he was too combative and not polished enough to be given a permanent high-profile slot, since both were absolutely true. But obviously, he had -- and has -- passion to spare, and that he deserves credit for.

That said, Uygur's constant hectoring of President Obama -- the pissy and bitter expressions of exasperated outrage and disappointment that have become his stock-in-trade -- diminishes a lot of the deference I'm willing to show him. What's interesting about Current's predictable decision to bring him on board is what it says about the network and about partisan news outlets in general.

Fox News came into being because Murdoch and Ailes felt like the right wasn't getting a fair shake and that they could both create an entire network around a conservative worldview and reap the rewards of broadcasting almost solely to that supposedly disenfranchised audience. It was always utter horseshit, but it worked beautifully; by stoking the fear, anger and paranoia of its core audience, it not only created a wildly successful programming model but it proved to that audience why Fox News was necessary in the first place, as a bulwark against the traditional liberal media onslaught. In other words, Fox just didn't think the mainstream media were conservative enough for it and its presumed audience, so it did something about it.

And now Current is apparently doing the same thing, just from the opposite side. The network is exploiting discontent with the traditional press, only it's saying that the mainstream isn't liberal enough and, more importantly, that it can't be fully trusted because it's under the control of a handful of corporate media behemoths. To some extent, I can't argue with this, but my concern is that those corporate media outlets -- the ones not Fox, of course -- are becoming the centrist players in the game. If Current's line-up were to turn into a sanctuary for only one point-of-view -- that of the perpetually unhappy "emo progs" -- then that standard of ideological purity will make the information it delivers somewhat suspect and ultimately divisive. Maybe I'm naive, but even in the face of a powerful adversary that's incredibly adept at coming together and staying on message, I have to believe that progressive politics these days needs to be inclusive of different, sometimes conflicting perspectives, and those include the ones in the center -- because right now the center is almost as far removed from the extremist Tea Party madness that's consumed the GOP as the avowed left.

If Current positions itself as the "liberal" alternative to Fox News -- which I'm hoping it isn't consciously doing -- then it's going to alienate the large audience that's as dedicated to progressive politics as somebody like Cenk Uygur but which, unlike him, chooses thoughtful, long-term strategy over blunt-force militancy.

It's sad when the much-maligned mainstream press starts to feel like it's at least more likely to give you several sides of a story than its fiercely independent counterparts.

He's the Establishment, Man!

If you thought that my largely even-handed piece last week on the departure of Cenk Uygur from MSNBC would be met with magnanimity and an interest in healthy debate, free from petty dismissiveness, over at the Huffington Post -- well, you obviously don't read HuffPo much. While there were a few comments that could be called thoughtful and engaging, a good portion of them sounded like they were written by people who had just been forced to gargle a tall glass of cat piss.

The biggest argument seemed to be that Cenk's unrefined, blunt-instrument delivery -- which I think works alright on his internet show but is a little irritating on television at six o'clock -- just proves how genuine he is and constitutes a much-needed breath of fresh air on cable news.

"Mr. Pazienza..­..sorry you don't appreciate the straight-f­orward... and honest style of journalism that Cenk Uygur embodies, but maybe you need to get over that."

-- LelioRisen

"I completely disagree with this person'a assessment of Cenk. Everything he said he backed up with facts. He's REAL."

-- efffox

Then there were the people who specifically zeroed-in on my use of the word "polish" to describe what Uygur lacks.

"'I don't think Uygur's a very polished broadcaste­r, so from that perspectiv­e I can understand why Griffin might want to relegate him to MS's basement for a little while.' Yeah, we are all looking for 'polish' vs adherence to principal in our reporters."

-- zlohcuc

"Does the author mean polished like most of on-air hosts on most of the networks in the U.S. who don't know what questions to ask and do not listen to the answers given for proper follow up but look good doing it? That kind of polished?"

-- gysgt213

For the record, and I've made this clear here a couple of times, saying that Cenk isn't polished was a really nice way of not saying that he sounds like he's talking with a mouth full of marbles. What he's saying is decent -- it really is. How he's saying it needs work, and his combative delivery just makes his deficiencies when it comes to enunciation more pronounced. I'm certainly not saying that he should be banished from network news for all eternity; I'm saying that he needs to learn to be passionate without letting it consume him to the point where it highlights his faults as a broadcaster and therefore works against him when it comes to trying to effectively get his point across, and that's simply something you learn with training and over time.

Then, of course, comes the inevitable guy who accuses me of working for Fox.

"More importantly Chez. Who pays you? Roger or does Rupert pay you directly. This was a hit piece on MSNBC if I ever read one. The snide comments about being yelled at, bellicose, lame at broadcasti­ng, nonstop left handed remarks about KO, Shultz, Cenk, and others."

-- Liberalbuzz

But the number of people who had one very specific word to describe me -- presumably for having the gall to not offer what they deemed an unequivocal defense of Cenk -- well, just see for yourself.

"This from a guy with 20 years inside establishm­ent news. Hmmm..."

-- HeevenSteven

"'presumabl­y, nobody wanted to be shouted at for four minutes by a crazy guy who couldn't stop flailing his arms in their direction' C'mon, that is absurd! Uygur is nothing but respectful with guests who are respectful to him... Get with the program, Chez."

-- Aber

Rersponse: "He's establishm­ent, what do you expect. Both sides are "50/50", always."

-- MyMindSpray

"HuffPost's tone is set to defend the establishm­ent. Impressive­! Why don't you tell us why Phil Griffin is more credible than Cenk?"

-- Genna

"'It's one reason I respect Cenk so much - he sticks to his principles first.' This would be the reason Chez, and any number of other media figures critical of people like Cenk have a problem, you see. Because he maintained his integrity, even at personal cost. While the ones griping are those who've sold theirs off a piece at a time for a little more cash and notoriety. People who wholly abandon their principles for mere profit of one kind or another are always upset with someone who won't, no matter the pressure. Because it makes them realize what weak, hollow, and pathetic excuses for human beings they really have become. Everyone should be just like them, so they don't have to feel bad about being a sellout."

-- Asmodeus

That last comment I actually responded to, which I rarely do. All I wrote was, "That's pretty rich. You don't know much about my history, do you?" The idea that anyone should have to pass a political purity test is obscene to begin with, but to call me in particular "establishment" is fucking ridiculous. Like Cenk, I whipped right around and publicly bit the hand that fed me -- burning not just a job but potentially my entire career to the ground -- immediately after being fired by CNN for blogging. Speaking my mind, and the suicidally stupid need to go on speaking my mind, cost me a whole hell of a lot. It's a breeze to be ferociously vocal about your views -- and to criticize those who aren't -- when you're hiding behind an online handle and posting comments at the Huffington Post. Try doing it when there are serious negative repercussions that threaten your livelihood and everything you hold dear. If you can't do it then -- or until you're even in that position -- shut your goddamned trap.

This guy had a decent question (although he was apparently trying to get it to read the way Cenk often talks):

"Wait a moment, first you say he got a big of an ego, and then you say 'To hear Uygur address his online audience about the whole thing, you get the impression that at least on some level he really did feel like he had a responsibi­lity to the people who put him in the position to be moved up to the big leagues in the first place, and he didn't want to sell them out or let them down.' So which one is it, integrity or ego. ?"

-- Zacky Ahmed

Why can't it be both? You think it isn't possible for someone with a healthy ego to have integrity as well?

Then, needless to say, came the Sharpton defenders.

"Don't knock Rev. Sharpton! He doesn't have the experience as Cenk didn't, but give him a chance. I'm sure he will improve if he's allowed to stay. This is a new venue for him and hopefully, he will find coaches to help him refine his presence on TV."

-- madatnewsmedia

"Sharpton's rhetorical style may differ because of his background as a minister but there is nothing incoherent about him. I think Pazienia may not be experience­d in listening to a diverse group of speakers."

-- db08

The problem with Sharpton is that, unlike Cenk, it's not just what he says and how he says it -- but who he is. Cenk makes good points, he just does it poorly sometimes from a broadcasting perspective. Regardless, his passion is commendable and I do believe he's 100% sincere in his beliefs. Sharpton is on TV because nobody likes seeing himself on TV more (besides maybe Gloria Allred, but if I get into that we'll be here all day).

Turk Off

Well, as somebody who's never met a bridge he couldn't plant 600 pounds of explosives under, I'll say this for Cenk Uygur: The boy's got some industrial-sized balls on him.

Rather than even wait for a planned teleconference to explain his sudden departure from MSNBC, Uygur -- who always seems to be on a Red Bull IV drip anyway -- took to the comfortable environs of his Young Turks YouTube channel last night to basically fire a couple of impressive parting shots at his former employer. He claims that despite respectably sturdy ratings for the 6PM show during his six months or so at the reins, MSNBC president Phil Griffin made the decision to "go in a different direction" with it, basically relieving him of the show with the promise of a lower-profile on-air gig in a slot as yet to be determined. I've said before, numerous times in fact, that I don't think Uygur's a very polished broadcaster, so from that perspective I can understand why Griffin might want to relegate him to MS's basement for a little while. But of course, Uygur says that his technical skills as an on-air host weren't the primary reason the network decided to cut him loose at six.

He says it's all about his politics and his often combative defense of them.

According to Uygur, Griffin told him that "people in Washington" weren't happy with the tone of his show. Cenk of course takes that to mean that he was upsetting the merchants' carts in the temples of political power; Griffin says that by "people in Washington" he meant NBC producers who were having trouble booking guests because, presumably, nobody wanted to be shouted at for four minutes by a crazy guy who couldn't stop flailing his arms in their direction. Uygur goes on to say that at one point Griffin warned him that while he was content to rail against the establishment, MSNBC in fact is the establishment, and that that had to be kept in mind at all times. Whether this conversation really took place doesn't matter one bit because what Griffin supposedly said is a revelation about on par with finding out that the sky is blue. MSNBC, which is now part of the largest media conglomerate in the world, vertically integrated like no other, is the establishment -- well, no shit.

Whether Cenk's wounded pride was a factor in his decision to turn down MSNBC's consolation prize we'll never know for sure; obviously he's got a bit of an ego to think that he has the ability to scare the Beltway types to the point where they'd lock themselves inside their homes. But he's not lying when he says that whatever money he was being offered to stick around was almost certainly a hell of a lot more than he gets being an internet superstar. (I also couldn't help but nod knowingly at his mention of the various high-end "perks" that come with working for a corporate media behemoth; suddenly feeling like you're James Bond is nothing short of intoxicating.) So yeah, he definitely walked away from a nice paycheck and that alone could speak volumes about the purity of his motives. To hear Uygur address his online audience about the whole thing, you get the impression that at least on some level he really did feel like he had a responsibility to the people who put him in the position to be moved up to the big leagues in the first place, and he didn't want to sell them out or let them down.

Since making a conscious decision to lean to the left, MSNBC has been precariously walking a fine line between giving its progressive voices the freedom they need to be effective as hosts and understanding that that freedom will often have them saying and doing things that will make the network's corporate overlords want to drop a hundred-thousand-pound anvil on the whole place. Again, MS is the establishment -- which means that while guys like Phil Griffin want their anchors, reporters and contributors to work outside the box, they need to make sure they work inside a slightly larger box. Uygur was a bit of a loose cannon on-air, but not so much that it should have cost him his job; Ed Schultz is infinitely more bellicose as a host and astonishingly he's still firmly in place in prime-time, despite a couple of recent, entirely predictable hiccups. The difference, I think, is one of inelegance. Even Schultz's occasionally obnoxious outrage has been carefully honed to the point where it's not quite the blunt instrument wielded by Uygur. While I'm not a big fan of Schultz's, he's a better broadcaster than Uygur. The same goes for the dearly departed Keith Olbermann, who was kept on for as long as he was only because of his immense and undeniable talents as a television host. Olbermann pissed a lot of people off, from his peers to his managers to the overlords in the adminisphere; MSNBC's decision to finally cut him loose wasn't a case of Olbermann saying things management didn't want him to say as much as him infuriating everyone in his path. Griffin just decided he wasn't worth the hassle because his ratings were great but not that great.

And that's really what it comes down to. Cenk's numbers were decent, but they weren't through the roof, in MSNBC's mind not good enough warrant giving him time to develop in a hugely important spot in its line-up. That plus his deficiencies as a network broadcaster -- and that includes his tendency to appear as if he's always one step away from challenging his political adversaries to a roshambo in the parking lot -- probably sealed his fate at six. What does all of this mean for his apparent replacement, Al Sharpton, a guy whose jarring on-air pauses and inability to complete a coherent thought make Uygur look like Murrow? Name recognition and novelty factor aside, he'd better hope his ratings are damn good -- and that they stay that way.

Still, in the end did Cenk apparently stand up for what he believes in -- and what his online audience expects of him -- in the aftermath of his demotion? Sure looks that way.

And for that he gets to walk out with his head held very high.

Uygrrrr

Look, I've never been a huge fan of Cenk Uygur as far as his being a broadcaster -- I think I've made that pretty clear. While I do agree with some of his politics, I'm not into shouting and I am into being able to distinctively pronounce each and every syllable in a word. Nothing personal against the guy, I just didn't think he was ready for prime-time, as it were, and wanted to see him do a little more work online before somebody pulled him up to the big leagues.

That said, I don't feel strongly enough about him to cheer the fact that he just lost his plum gig at MSNBC, as de facto host of the network's 6PM hour. I'm especially not going to be doing the Snoopy dance if it turns out that MS really is pushing him out in favor of Al Sharpton, as all speculation is pointing toward.

Cenk's a little annoying. Sharpton is a shamelessly corrupt narcissist without an ounce of broadcasting talent to speak of. He's been disgraced and discredited over and over again and has no business being anywhere near an NBC studio, much less having his name on an NBC show and an NBC paycheck.

Needless to say, Uygur's apparently less-than-thrilled with being given the boot and he'll supposedly be talking about it tomorrow via a press teleconference. If Sharpton takes his place? Well, then the rest of us get to be pissed as well.

Arrest Report

If you've read this site for just about any length of time you know that I've gotten used to being a speed bag for the Huffington Post peanut gallery. Whenever something of mine gets published over there, it's usually possible to count the minutes before the HuffPo readers -- some of whom are incredibly bright, some of whom may as well be free-range retards -- begin wondering aloud whether I'm a paid operative for Fox News or just your average Renfield-esque flunkie. This is probably because the pieces of mine that get posted there have tended, especially lately, to be more centrist than the mixed-bag you find here. And for the professionally pissed-off liberal Star Chamber that holds court round-the-clock in the Huffington Post comment section, my attempts at being reasonably moderate mean I may as well be pissing on a welfare baby while eating a Big Mac and plowing a Hummer through the front of a Whole Foods in the Haight.

So with that in mind you can imagine the kind of ire my recent piece on Cenk Uygur and the arrest of Nicole Sandler drew. To be honest, not a lot of people commented on it, but quite a few of the ones who did -- particularly Brad Friedman from the Brad Blog, some of whose work I happen to like but who I wound up getting into a ridiculously drawn-out debate with -- basically took me to task. To say that it doesn't bother me one way or the other and that I'm actually just entertained as hell by it is a pretty gross understatement. But what it proves is that while, no, the left and right are nowhere near the same -- not when it comes to the level of intellectually dishonest hypocrisy they're willing to spew or the incomprehensible lack of shame they regularly display -- blind tribal loyalty is as powerful at one end of the political spectrum as it is at the other. And even a little bit of straying off-message -- even from someone who's obviously, for the most part, on your side -- just cannot stand.

I normally post the best responses here, but to be honest the only thing really amusing is the back-and-forth between me and Friedman -- so I'll just refer you to the post at HuffPo and let you read for yourself.

Enjoy.

The Huffington Post: The Arrest of the Story/4.29.11

Quotes of the Day: Part 1

"Bottom line -- endless war didn't work. In the end, we found the man who authorized the attacks on 9/11 through good intelligence work and killed him with a very small, targeted strike with our best trained forces. We didn't use an army battalion or a surge or huge ground troops backed up by Abrams tanks. It was a surgical strike pulled off by a small unit. Imagine if we had invaded Pakistan instead to accomplish our objective (they were only nominally cooperating with us -- he was sitting right outside their capital). How little sense would that have made? Just about as much sense as the other wars made -- not much at all. War is the wrong strategy when fighting terrorism."

-- Cenk Uygur in the Huffington Post

I realize that just last week I was criticizing Uygur, but credit where credit is absolutely due: He's 100% right about this. Punishing the Taliban for its collusion with bin Laden wasn't necessarily wrong, but from a pragmatic standpoint -- when it came to accomplishing what should have always been our number one goal -- it certainly wasn't right either, particularly not when bin Laden may have been in Pakistan almost the entire time. And as for our folly in Iraq -- that's not even worth dignifying with an ostensibly cogent argument.

There will be a lot of debate today over every facet of this story -- from the logistical details of the raid, to the political ramifications for the president, to the possible consequences for each and every one of us around the globe. But when it comes to this specific issue, it should always have been obvious that terrorism isn't an army or a country -- it's a methodology, and one that can only be fought with top-notch intelligence and swift, surgical precision. In other words, with brains, not necessarily brawn.

Arrest of the Story

I watched a segment a little while ago on the always delightful Cenk Uygur's show on MSNBC and to be honest the guy and his producers really deserve to be called out on a couple of things.

Uygur was interviewing Nicole Sandler, the South Florida radio host who managed to get arrested on Tuesday evening at a town hall meeting hosted by Rep. Allen West (R-Psychopath), and during his introduction he did something that was really misleading. He showed a clip of Sandler shouting a question at West -- what some considered a serious disruption but what didn't seem like a huge deal -- and following a very minor amount of resulting chaos, the video cut to images of a Fort Lauderdale cop putting Sandler's hands behind her back and cuffing her. Both the visual and the verbal implication from Uygur's voice-over made it crystal clear: Sandler shouted some questions at West and was arrested just a couple of seconds after and presumably for it.

Unfortunately, that's not what happened.

Sandler has posted the extended video over at her website -- in the interest of full disclosure, she's a member of the Banter Media Network -- and what it shows is that as the officer was escorting her out of the room she was giving him crap the entire way. Getting upset with a cop isn't generally an arrestable offense, but it is if you also don't do what that cop tells you to -- and that's what happened. He very calmly asked her to keep moving, she slowed down then stopped, stuck her finger in his face and yelled at him to get his hands off her and -- surprise, you're under arrest.

Now, did Nicole Sandler deserve to be escorted off the premises to begin with? Maybe not. Should Allen West be forced to answer for the unbelievable horseshit he spews? Absolutely. Is it a crime to shout questions at a congressman at a public town hall meeting? If it were the jails would've been filled with terrified and pissed off Republican old people a couple of summers ago. But you don't get to react with shock when you don't do what a police officer tells you to and he hauls you off to jail for it. You want to make a political statement and purposely get yourself arrested, that's one thing, but don't pretend that some great injustice has occurred -- and that you never saw it coming -- because you didn't follow a cop's instructions and he did his job.

Incidentally, Sandler's defiant act apparently didn't stop at the arrest. She said during the interview that she was maced in jail; when Uygur indignantly asked why, she essentially came right out and admitted that she argued with the officers, questioned everything they told her to do, wouldn't immediately follow their instructions. Again, is this a reason for someone to get maced? I can't say since I didn't see exactly what happened -- but throughout the entire interview I just kept shaking my head and remembering the Chris Rock bit about how you react when a cop tells you to do something: "Yes sir!" Jesus, even if you had made the conscious decision to really stick it to Allen West at his town meeting, consequences be damned, once you're actually in police custody and you've made your point you have nothing to gain by continuing to be antagonistic toward the police. Just who do you think has the upper hand in that test of wills?

Look, I swear I'm not really trying to beat up on Nicole Sandler; shouting down Allen West is an inarguably good thing if only because everyone will get a couple of seconds where they won't have to hear him. I'm actually more pissed at Uygur's complete and borderline unethical disregard for the truth -- for knowingly twisting events so that it all became "blue meat" for his and his audience's firmly held biases. That's the kind of crap Fox News pulls all the time and it shouldn't be acceptable -- even once in a while -- from those who constantly criticize Fox for it.

Oh yeah, one more thing -- both Cenk Uygur and the lower-third onscreen graphic kept insisting that Sandler had gone to "prison." No, she didn't. She went to jail -- there's a difference.

If Uygur's going to actually be allowed to play pro ball rather than being relegated to the farm league, he'd better start taking his game a hell of a lot more seriously.

Update

Here's the story as presented on Uygur's show tonight:



And here's the extended video:

Uygur the Horrible

I'll make this quick.

There's an old SCTV sketch that features Eugene Levy's dead-on impression of perenially irritating Today show movie critic Gene Shalit doing a commercial for Bayer aspirin. In the ad, "Shalit" shouts directly into the camera about how taking a couple of Bayer not only gets rid of the pain of a headache, it goes right to the source to eliminate what's causing the headache itself. Shalit then pops two aspirin and, as you might expect, suddenly vanishes in a puff of smoke.

I think of this sketch every time I make the mistake of watching Cenk Uygur on MSNBC.

While I may agree with Uygur on a few issues and I'm sure he's a decent enough guy, his on-air histrionics -- that bombastic delivery combined with his marble-mouthed inability to avoid violently abusing the English language -- turn my spine to glass and strip every nerve in my skull raw. I listen to him for a while and I honestly feel like I've had the shit kicked out of me in a prison yard somewhere. I get that Uygur is very proud of the fact that his Young Turks newscast is the most popular thing on YouTube that doesn't feature a small Asian girl covering Lady GaGa, but on a network like MSNBC his public access act looks positively ridiculous and amateurish. He kind of pompously says he wants Fox News to fear him -- or what, he'll meet O'Reilly in an alley behind a bar and roshambo him?

I don't need my left-leaning commentators to be overly cerebral dullards who function as human Ambien, but for God's sake leave the pummel-the-audience shtick to the dingbats on the right.

And if you can't do that, at least give me a couple of aspirin.