Opinion journalism is two parts. The first is combative--you do, in fact, want to be right. And your audience expects you to have the basics of argumentation down, and to make a game effort. But the second part is educational--its about exploration, about learning. And part of learning, is getting sonned by people who know more than you. But television tends to attract the sort of people who are more concerned with combat than exploration. In their hands, opinion journalism becomes a kind of Olympics Of Righteousness, a contest to prove your superior and infallible knowledge. Hence this Scarborough clip below.
Scarborough's people don't seem interested in researching Brzezinski's position. They're just looking for evidence that they are right. It's interesting to see them presenting that evidence when the only available to defend Brzezinski is his daughter, who's obviously conflicted and trying to defuse the situation, without dishonoring her father.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
man, just heard you on npr as I was driving my daughter to school. First time I heard of you so I came on here to check you out.
Articulate, incisive, on point. I'll be following more to learn more about you thought I gotta say, football and video games are more my 12 year old son's thing---
Touche. I can't stand it when Dr. Brezinksi is on their show and Scarborough can't help but get 'cute' because it's Mika's father.
Heard you on NPR as well, good job.
Zbig's "You have a such stunningly superficial knowledge of what went on it's almost embarrassing to listen to you" was the best pimp slap I've seen in ages. I saw this when it first aired, and failed to keep myself from cheering out loud.
Must have missed you on NPR this morning; I'll have to check out their website.
Wow. It really is all about Joe's big fat ego, isn't it? These are the times I'm glad I don't have cable.
Sorry I missed you on NPR.
You're late on this Coates. But, I'll smile again at the remembrance. I love anyone who bitchslaps Joe ' I had a dead staffer in my office' Scarborough.
Coates, toot your own horn...give a link to your NPR appearance.
It's coming guys. I should have had it up sooner.
NOTE: You're going to have to do a separate post on you NPR comments!
I heard it too. I thought you were right on the spot. It makes me so angry when folks throw up The Legacy to try and get something they want. In my opinion Burris' blockage has nothing to do with him being black. H. Reid is not standing on the capitol steps talking about there is no need for Folks to be a part of the club. Blago is playing The Team like a fiddle; can't they see it?
To the CRIC (see Gina's blog on What About Your Daughters for an explanation of the acronym): Quit comparing politic shenanigans to lynching. It's a dishonor to the people who actually lost their lives in one of the most grusome ways imaginable. Have a little respect.
Coates
Great minds think alike. I was up late last night writing about the exact same thing. But here is the biggest thing. It isn't just that Scarborough is a coward who had to get his producer lackeys to work up a dossier to try to prove him right and embarrass Mr Brzezinski when he wasn't there and he had his peanut gallery egging him on, no its ALSO that he is still DEAD ASS WRONG and if he had done what Mika's dad told him to and googled "taba" he would have seen that. Its sad that Mika wouldn't defend her own father more vigorously but any 8 year old with a computer could have proven Scarborough wrong. Its not some state secret, its right there on wikipedia about the Taba Summit which happened AFTER the pow wow with Bill Clinton that failed and indeed most accounts say time just ran out because of the impending elections and Sharon wouldn't honor all the work they had done up until that point after he got in.
I can't wait for Mr Brzezinski to come back on and PWN him some more but I doubt they will invite him back any time soon.
Can't wait to hear your joint on NPR
I'm no fan of Mika, but I thought it was foul how Scarborough and the producer set her up yesterday. I thought she handled it relatively well with her invitation to Scarborough to debate her father. I wouldn't have been so tactful. I would have said, "mother fucker, you didn't talk this shit when my daddy was here! I'll get him on the show tomorrow, so you can it to his face."
I agree with your overall take on these shows, whether it is this one, Olbermann's, O"Reilly's, Hardball, it is pretty much the same. My biggest problem with these types of shows is similar to what you mentioned about educating. They often aren't, they typically only have a limited range of views and when faced with dissent the tactics used are usually those intended to stifle real debate.
The part I disagree on in this instance is that Scarborough wasn't aligning himself with an ally, he was in defense of Bill Clinton. I just wonder what the reaction would be if one switched the parties, having Clinton in Scarborough's role and Pat Buchanon in Z. Brezinski's role.
That clip speaks volumes about Scarborough and the size of his insecurities.
Modern media has, among other things, strangled higher discourse in the public arena. This is why I watch C-Span when I want in-depth discussion and exploration of a topic rather than just combative "gotcha" journalism.
Along with devolving the discourse, the modern media cycle has also put a serious damper on true leadership. We're now a country of the soundbite, by the soundbite, and for the soundbite.
I doubt that's an original phrase, but, hell, it sounds good. Maybe I'll get some play on Hardball.
DougEMI
Scarborough's show isn't like Olbermann's damn near at all. You can say Olberman is pretentiour or that you don't agree with his point of view but you won't find many times where he puts some factually incorrect bullshit out. In Scarborough's world he is always right and if he isn't well he still is.
He wasn't aligning himself with Bill Clinton, he was aligning himself AGAINST Yassar Arafat and all the Palestinians. Go back and watch the first show where all of this first started. He was trying to give Israel cover for their air strikes and Mika's dad was smacking him around. So then he tried to bring up the bogus "Arafat walked out" meme and Mika's dad to use Coates' word "sonned" the hell out of him. Everything he said in the new clip yesterday had to do with him trying to prove HE was right because he was still stinging from getting embarrassed on his own show.
Also you should know that Buchannan doesn't agree with Scarborough on whats going on in Gaza and thats probably why you haven't seen much of Uncle Pat lately. Scarborough is a hack who can never defend his own position when challenged. Google "Scarborough Maddow" to see how bad she pwned him several times before she got her own show. One time to the point where he threw off his ear piece and walked out of the show on 1600 Penn Ave. That guy is a joke and a coward and I can only hope that Mika's father decides to just drop in one day and embarrass the shit out of him again.
Scarborough is a loud mouth yokel with a superficial knowledge of the outside, like a lot of americans talking heads. Dr. Z was right to "correct" him. Love that guy, he looks and sounds like a russian villain for a Hollywood movie, but soo funny!
Coates -- its spelled 'Brzezinski.'
OT, but I can't be the only one who sees 'Burris,' 'Rush,' and 'blockage,' and somehow pictures Limbaugh bemoaning the contact-averse play of Negro wideouts.
OT - As a former fullback...all receivers are contact-averse. Watching them throw a block is usually an exercise in physical comedy :)
I don't agree with you on Olbermann. I think his show is so full of it, a liberal like Bob Sommersby said it is more propagandistic than Fox News. I have read enough of the site Olbermann Watch to see that Olbermann quite often misrepresents what those who don't think like him actually said. I know you don't agree with this point, but I think Olby is more of a coward by largely avoiding conflicting opinions on his show.
I turned in for a second last night and once again, EJ Dionne was on there to spout talking points. I did hear that someone did actually critique the incoming admin, though that was an attack from the left.
Scarborough bringing up Arafat walking out is carrying water for the Clinton position. Clinton has blamed Arafat for the breakdown. Scarborough may be superficial on this issue, but in this fight, he was solidly on the Clinton side. As for Buchanan, I am aware that he is against Joe and Clinton's position, which is why I put up the hypothetical. In an imaginary debate on the situation, I doubt you would have the left applauding Buchanan if he hit out at Clinton.
Truly, I aspire to be as cool, calm and collected as Mr Brzezinski when giving out incisive smack downs to loudmouths like Scarborough. It was a thing of beauty to behold.
I recall my horror the first time I watched a Bill O'Reilly show. I mean, I heard about his approach and antics but it was another thing to actually watch him browbeat his guests, twist their words, yell and outright lie on his show.
Sadly enough, I've been told that Scarborough is the better of the screaming lot that includes Hannity, Limbaugh and O'Reilly.
Ginger,
Thanks. And fixt.
Someone please correct me if i am wrong here.
Scarborough maintained that during the last round of serious negotiations back in - what was it 2000? - the Palestinians under Arafat were offered what was by most accounts a large concession by the Israelis, recognition of statehood and something like 95% of pre-1967 land or something like that.
Brezezinski replied that in fact, the Palestinians didn't straight turn it down, but rather the negotiations at that point began to break down and eventually fell apart due to multiple reasons, chiefly upcoming elections on each side at home where each populace felt its government was offering too much. He felt that Scarborough either elided or simply didn't know of this nuance and ... hence the rank-out. Do I have that right? I'm @ work and can't really watch the whole thing again right now.
I had been under the same impression that Scarborough seems to be under, namely that the Palestinians have for many decades steadfastly refused to accept anything at all less than a full state with pre-1967 borders. I'm not saying they should or shouldn't, but isn't that the situation?
sv
Scarborough didn't know that the Taba Summit ever took place where Arafat came back to the table and the details were almost worked out. The truth is in the end they just ran out of time because of the impending elections and Sharon wasn't having it. Google Taba Summitt and you will see what Mika's dad was talking about. And there is a very good reason you thought the same as Scarborough, its because thats the way our media works. Easier to blame Arafat than either Israel or Clinton.
DougEMI
We are talking about two different things. YES Olbermann is propaganda just like Bill O and Scarborough and Maddow. But the difference is Olbermann no matter how much of a propagandist he is usually sticks to the facts AND is willing to admit when he is wrong. Scarborough Bill O and Hannity all purposely lie to advance their own meme. Olbermann Watch is a joke. Its like one of Bill O's producers chasing a story and trying to make it fit in a box. Like I said before, you can disagree with the point of view he is coming from or you can disagree with his opinion thats all fine. But some facts aren't debatable they are black and white, and you won't find Olbermann being factually wrong on Olbermann watch or any other wingnut website even a fraction of a time that Scarborough and Bill O nem are.
Now again you are still missing the point. Scarborough was agreeing with Clinton not being on his side and it was only to further a meme in favor of Israel and against Palestine. It wasn't like he was saying Bill Clinton was some kind of great guy who almost pulled this off, he just needed Clinton's words in order to make himself look better. I can tell you don't watch Morning Joe much if at all but trust me on this, Scarborough would rather tongue kiss Buchannan than take up for Bill Clinton.
I think all of this has become kind of absurd - too much, I think, has been focused on the "smackdown" element (which is the kind of thing I wish our culture had less of, frankly) and not on the specifics. As Scarborough said at the time to Brzezinski, and has he said here, his take - that Arafat walked away from the "best deal" - is a generally accepted one; ask many American Jews what they think happened, and they'd tell you just that. That may be wrong - I tend to agree there's more nuance, at least, to the matter... but that's not really the point: with the Israelis able to say they "offered a good faith solution" and "arafat walked away" they've justified about 10 years worth of bad policy since. Is that Scarborough's fault? No, and in asking for Brzezinski's take he was, I think, doing a pretty good job of confronting current perceptions of the Arab Israeli conflict. It's a shame that what is probably a useful, necessary discussion of the issues involved has become a "whoa! you were smacked/sonned!" exercise in gotcha television. As a nation, we need, desperately, to rethink how we look at the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians (one reason I'm glad TNC has brought in someone to talk about it when he feels he can't), if for no other reason than it affects us both abroad and at home. Joe Scarborough is hardly the worst - or more to the point, the biggest - offender on TV when it comes to bad, one-sided interviews, even on MSNBC. To me, he's someone who's turned out to be less knee jerk and more thoughtful than Id expect a Reagan-era Republican congressman to be. But regardless, I think this discussion has drifted into uselessness, and really, we should just let it go.
If you type Olbermann into the search box and Daily Howler, there are pages of criticism and errors including those where Olbermann was corrected by a guest yet keeps on repeating the same error. Olbermann Watch isn't the most readable thing, but they do point out a lot of Olbermann's misstatements and hypocracies, especially when he calls others cowards for in fact acting like Olbermann.
I have no way of tabulating who is wrong more often, but I would imagine an hour long, highly scripted show with very little debate would produce far few inaccuracies than a three hour show where you are questioned and there is give and take. Just like how there would be more errors in an 8 person primary debate than there would be in a convention acceptance speech.
As far as Scarborough and Clinton, on this issue, they are on the same side. On this issue, 90% of politicians are on their side. I don't watch hours of Morning Joe, but I know Scarborough did a lot of ass kissing whenever Hillary was on with him. I would say he was certainly fairer to her than Olbermann ever was, once Hillary became Olbermann's worst person of the Primary Season.
DougEMI
You are still talking fair vs truth. And I would point out that most Republicans wanted Hillary to win because they thought they had more ammo against her and they new running against a black man was going to give them headaches. Go to MediaMatters.org and they have a whole section on Scarborough. He doesn't have back and forth on his show, you either agree with him or get steamrolled. Unless that is you are big Z.
I agree that Scarborough loves the sound of his own voice, but he constantly had Axelrod and Gibbs on his show and was very respectful to them.
As someone who leans conservative, I wanted Obama to win because I would rather he be President than Hillary if a dem were going to win.
T.N-C. You really need to post the original Joe/Zbig conversation (from about 5:30 to the end), to get a feel for what led up to Zbig's slap down. I was listening to it that morning, with the TV in another room, and when Zbig sonned Joe, I rushed into the TV room and out of my mouth, involuntarily I swear, came the words, "Oh, no, he di'int." It was such an elegantly delivered putdown, followed by several others before the interview ended.
For reasons I don't fully understand, I listen to Morning Joe most days. Fox is unthinkable, and CNN is OK, but MJ is my choice. Perhaps it's because, as Mika said in a recent interview with Howie the K, MJ has "No cooking, no lingerie, no missing girls."
Joe is an insecure, immature bully. Especially toward women. I often wish Mika would take him on more. I think up until recently she was trying to maintain some degree of neutrality to protect her reputation as a real reporter (which she was for many years). But lately, it seems she's accepted that she's allowed to have an opinion, and she does call out Joe more often than in the past.
Poor Joe has never gotten over being in Congress, although he mentions it less often since Willie started saying, "you were in Congress?" every time Joe brought it up. He frequently makes a speech when he's attempting to ask a question; as a result, his own yapping takes up a lot of time allocated to the guest.
Despite his annoying demeanor, and the show's overly frequent addition of Pat Buchanan and Mike Barnicle -- two old geezers who can't shut up about Nixon and Reagan and Tip O'Neill -- MJ attracts great guests. As someone else mentioned, Axelrod and Gibbs were on constantly during the campaign, and although there are lots of the usual talking heads (Halpern, guys from Politico, et al.) the show also attracts people of substance such as -- today, for example, Richard Haas of the CFR and John Ridley. And of course, Chuck Todd every day.
Tom Shales (THE television critic non pareil) said that MJ has "blossomed as a provocative, alternate-universe newstalk show." I think the show was absolutely brilliant during the primary season, when it broadcast for an entire week from various state capitals, usually from a coffee shop. Joe was much better behaved and easier to take when surrounded by the noise and the non-DC types. Perhaps they should go on the road more often.
Like I said, I don't understand why I watch this show, so maybe this post is just a lame attempt to explain it to myself. As for the original dispute -- I'll go with Zbig.
And may I just add: Hook 'em Horns.
It was great to see someone put Joe Scarborough in his place.
Morning Joe is a super sized, toxic, steaming pile of excrement. The show is an abomination, an obscenity and an insult to logic, reason, rationality, and common sense.
Joe Scarborough is a smug, smarmy, sleazy, knuckle dragging neanderthal and a malignant cancer within the punditocracy.
Of course Scarborough is sensitive. Like Bill O'Reilly, he's a gutless poseur. Both of those guys bristle at any perceived assault on their authenticity, because they're completely inauthentic. They're the Vanilla Ice of mainstream punditry.
Anyone else having trouble getting the video to work? When I click play, it just routes me to msnbc's top videos.
I don't see how Scarborough got sonned when he was right. I mean, hell of a putdown, but he was right. As for Olbermann, if you're intelligent, you don't watch that crap.
I think what's interesting is this conception that Bill Clinton is a necessarily a superlatively fair broker. The United States, even under Clinton, is clearly pro-Israel. Limiting the discussion to US the foreign policy community and having a certain "respectability threshold" where being too critical of Israel automatically disqualifies any opposition. Any true Scotsman.
On top of this Scarborough's entire argument hinges on Arafat being offered the best deal he was going to get somehow being equivalent to him being given everything. This is obviously idiotic. It's a negotiation Arafat wanted more than Israel willing to offer alternatively Israel was not willing to offer enough to secure what they wanted either. I think the Palestinian people would have been best served by taking the deal, but that doesn't mean that the deal gave them "everything" or was even necessarily particularly fair.