I think this is what makes me most uneasy about the ethics of mainstream media. A lot of these guys are not "analysts," but people nakedly advocating for their pet causes and world-views. Dig Karl Rove below. Does anyone believe that anything's he's said below is genuine? You can laugh this off as Fox being Fox, but that misses the point that Rove writes for Newsweek, Mike Murphy works for TIME, and Kristol did the same before him and is now at the Times. Look at Begala and Carville, who really just look like they're pushing their next book.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Hawk their new book and undermine Obama because of their own loyalty to Hillary.
Would Rove or Castellanos have complained about the tone of the first night of the Republican convention as loudly ? Of course not
And the TradMed wonders why they are so hated. People only watch or read because there are used to it. And it is funny how the Republican operatives are true believers while the Democratic ones(Begalla/Carville) are just hired mercenaries. They'd work for Republicans if the money was right.
If he weren't Karl Rove (and therefore completely evil and disingenuous), I'd wonder if he watched a completely different speech from the rest of us.
Well, to be fair, its hard to find someone universally acknowledged as totally unbiased and only, always fair. So just hire a few people to come at you from a few ways. Your readership can read the opposing views and, you know, maybe, think it through.
If Time claims to be centrist, they have to hire Mike Murphy to balance Joe Klein; if the LAT wants to be left leaning, they toss a bone with Jonah Goldberg; and Wall Street Journal tosses an occasional guest spot to guys like Austan Goolsbee.
I realize that this isn't particularly intellectually rigorous of me, but I could only watch about 15 seconds of Karl Rove before I had to stop. He makes me want to puke my guts up. (I have only an only slightly less visceral reaction to James Carville.)
I could tell Karl Rove was lying.
He opened his mouth on television.
Well, to be fair, its hard to find someone universally acknowledged as totally unbiased and only, always fair. So just hire a few people to come at you from a few ways. Your readership can read the opposing views and, you know, maybe, think it through.
If Time claims to be centrist, they have to hire Mike Murphy to balance Joe Klein; if the LAT wants to be left leaning, they toss a bone with Jonah Goldberg; and Wall Street Journal tosses an occasional guest spot to guys like Austan Goolsbee.
Not quite the point. I don't think Jonah Goldberg ever really worked as a strategist for a campaign. That's the beef.
What really bugs me is the tendency among cable networks to "balance" bloodthirsty, amoral right-wing operatives with the likes of Hillary Rosen -- DLC corporate shills who devote nearly as much energy to liberal-bashing as the Republicans do.
Maybe the Times can step down another notch and hire the Turd Blossom. His honest partisanship might be a bit refreshing after Kristol's drivel.
Let's not forget Pat Buchanan in all this.
I have the same problem with these dudes getting to preen on TV that I have with John Yoo (torture memo guy) getting to teach law at Berkeley. I don't mind anyone expressing their far out notions. But when you've actually been involved in putting those far out notions into actual practice, and have done actual damage to the nation, then there needs to be some actual accountability for that before you're allowed a platform to pontificate to the nation.
Karl Rove shouldn't get to talk on TV while he is in contempt of congress and while allegations of criminal conduct remain unanswered. John Yoo shouldn't get to teach law until his own conformity with it is clear.
Blame Pat Buchanan.
He was so over-the-top and aggressively partisan, yet sort of impish and charming (Hey, he and Hunter Thompson liked each other) on the McLaughlin Group, news directors began demanding "I want another Buchanan."
Shine writes: "He was so over-the-top and aggressively partisan, yet sort of impish and charming (Hey, he and Hunter Thompson liked each other) on the McLaughlin Group, news directors began demanding "I want another Buchanan.""
I'll say this much for Buchanan. Even though he's basically crazy, he says what he means plainly and there isn't all this subterfuge going on. As opposed to slime-sucking bottom-feeding worthless maggots like Rove and Kristol who should be pelted with rocks and garbage on a daily basis for crimes against humanity.
To target this complaint at this list of GOP operatives and Begala/Carville really misses the point. All the examples given are pretty clearly understood to be operatives first, analysts second, and journalists not at all. Its far more insidious when political operatives are given journalistic positions and pretend to be even-handed. The most obvious example being George Stephanapolous, but no doubt there are prominent GOP examples I'm not thinking of at the moment.
Karl Rove spinning in the pages of Newsweek is no different than George Bush publishing an op-ed - its taken for what its worth. Stephanapolous moderating debates and offering "objective" commentary is far more corrupting of the journalistic enterprise.
This is an excellent point. The difference between listening to EJ Dionne and David Brooks on NPR and some Rove v. Begala battle is enormous even though they both discussions have some one from each side of the aisle. The difference between party hacks and commentators committed to an ideology is huge, reasonably obvious, and totally ignored my the media.