I rarely tune in to WTMJ anymore for local news, but for some reason that’s the channel we settled on tonight to watch the Democratic Convention coverage.
Their post debate “analysis” with none other than right-wing hack Charlie Sykes was in a word, brutal. In two words, brutally painful.
Instead of actually offering any actual analysis of the convention speech by Hillary Clinton, he stumbled over the tired talking points of the past several months in his blatant attempt to paint the speech, or her attempt to get her supporters behind Sen. Obama, as a kind of trumped up controversy that only exists in talk radio land. It’s almost as if he had his “analysis” scripted out ahead of time to advance his role as Milwaukee’s #1 Democratic concern troll.
I know that the parent company of WTMJ employs him and frequently pushes his unique brand of self-righteous smugness throughout their local media empire, but there are hoards of more qualified, and frankly more interesting, commentators in the Milwaukee area to provide analysis for the local NBC affiliate about the Democratic convention than him.
It’s self serving and embarrassing on the part of Journal Communications and WTMJ to have someone like him offering commentary on the Democratic convention.
It’s also one of the reason WTMJ has been loosing market share for the past several years. If people want to hear that kind of drivel, they tune in to his radio show. They expect more from a local news broadcast.
Your liberal media ladies and gentlemen.
I live in the Washington Heights neighborhood of Milwaukee, WI with my wife Jen, our daughter Emerson, and sons Carter and Colton.
Dan, I know exactly how you feel. I quit watching NBC news!
Dan,
You need to talk to those folks at party HQ. I couldn’t watch the Hillary speech last night. I wanted to, but the timing didn’t work out, and I knew better than to try to DVR it, given the variation in timings a convention has.
I tried to catch up with it this morning, but the DNC doesn’t want to let me watch any part of the convention unless I let them install software on my computer, the major selling point of which is the vast amount of viewer information it will collect and send back home. Flash video or streaming QT/MPEG isn’t good enough; you want to get even more details about my viewing habits, including a log entry *every time I launch my browser*?
Sorry, DNC. I happen to believe in a right to privacy, even if you don’t. Collect all the information off your server logs you want, but my computer is just that, mine. Keep your cottonpickin’ hands off’n it.
You could always have – GASP – turned the station. Why you decided as a left-wing hack to listen to a right-wing hack is a good question.
I watched the speech on MSNBC and I swear Olbermann offered to fellate Clinton’s speechwriter. So spare me your comments on the bias of the media.
So I’ve moved from “hack!” to “left-wing hack!”? If you keep saying it, it’s going to become fact.
Dan, your contention is that the MSM is NOT liberal, correct? If so, I’m stumped as to how you could explain recent exploration by both MSNBC and the Huffington Post (who you cannot deny is liberal) into the political contributions made by “journalists”? To better clarify, there was, on average, a 14:1 disparity between which political party those impartial (non-liberal) journalists gave their money to. Can you guess what party was on the “14″ side???? That’s right, the Democrats. I’d take up more time and computer space to make my argument, but 14:1 (minimum) basically makes my point.
Please stop trotting out the few conservatives the media has as the norm, since the likes of Charlie Sykes are the minority in that industry. Also, for every conservative you mention, there are probably…..let’s say…..14 liberals I could counter with.
I always figured it went without saying.
You’re not actually denying that you’re a partisan hack, are you?
Actually, I fell away from Channel 4 to watch the Daily Show at 10. When I do watch local news, I do turn to 4, for as long as I can stand the apparently-needy Carole Meekins, which is not long.
Is Sykes on alone now? During the primaries, at least they got a little weak balance with Jeff Fleming. That and their news guy – Petrano, or whoever – blaring his opinions at us and pointing speed guns at passing cars…sad to see.
Good post. Keep up the good work.
Can you guys ever keep on discussion, or is every comment an attempt to change the subject and divert attention away from the original point?
For the sixth commentor, you’re not actually suggesting that you don’t in fact sound like a jealous child are you? Explain to me us that isn’t factually true. If you can’t to my satisfaction, then it is.
Sounds silly doesn’t it?
I saw Sykes’ take also. I agree with what you are saying about WTMJ and the role they give him.
Sykes first made the point — which was not substantiated but intuitive — that Hillary’s motives in giving the speech were mainly a desire to maintain or improve her standing among Democrats. She likes to be liked, I guess. But then he added, apropos of nothing, that she didn’t say in her speech that there is still a bitter feud within the party. He was right at least that she didn’t say that. But that’s not analyzing the speech.
Have you noticed that most of the hostile convention “analysis” is often trying to highlight what was not said? Apparently, Michelle didn’t talk enough about the troops according to a Fox News report, or she tellingly failed to address high gas prices, according to Charlie Sykes.
WTMJ in fulfilling their in-kind donation to the GOP also feels compelled to those whites on the right who feel so victimized. That’s why Charles deGaulling gets run ad nauseum.
James:
How did I not address the original point of the blog post?
The author chose to listen to Sykes and then complains about the result. Does he drink Drano and then complain about the affect on his stomach? Because that would make as much sense.
The “media is biased”. I for one get a kick out of hacks left and right who make this complaint, but to use Sykes as your evidence is just plain stoopid. Sykes unlike a lot of people admits he’s in the tank for one side. I watched Matthews and Olbermann, both of whom I like, but Olbermann couldn’t possibly be more in the tank for the left. By Dan’s standards of using the single obvious partisan can I claim bias towards the left?
As far as Dan being a partisan hack I think it’s self evident. Don’t you?
Like I said, just keep repeating that I’m a “hack” and it will magically be true.
If you actually read the above posts, I wasn’t talking about the fact that Sykes being a right-wing ideologue who was ready to repeat his predetermained talking points regardless of what actually happened. That’s not in question.
I was making the point that it’s silly for WTMJ, during a “news” broadcast, to have said right-wing ideologue giving “analysis” about an event that is was anything but “analysis”.
They should have just said, “Here’s our parent companies mouthpiece for the right-wing to share with you his copy of talking points from GOP central…” That would have sufficed.
“Hack!!”
If you’re taking time to complain about Sykes not being introduced like that when everyone knows that’s what he already is, then perhaps it’s time to back away from the computer and spend more time with that nice family of yours.
Dan, I’m sorry, but the fact that you spend time complaining about a radio station’s choice of post-game analysis is part of what makes you a hack. Because that’s what hacks do: go out of their way to complain about something the other 80% of the population could give two craps about in a quixotic effort to make the “other” look bad. The other evidence I have for your hackiness was your refusal/inability to answer several detailed policy questions about Milwaukee County’s finances a while back. But, water under the bridge.
Look there’s nothing wrong with hacks. So long as we (unfortunately) have parties we’ll have hacks. Hell my best man was a hack. Great guy, but like you he’d pan a speech by Cicero and laud a speech that was nothing but a monkey scratching his nuts so long as the letter after his name was the right one.
BTW, I thought both Clinton’s and especially Biden’s speeches were very good. I didn’t agree with all of it, and still haven’t figured out for whom I am going to vote, but I can be honest and say they were fine political speeches. I wonder if you’ll be able to do the same when the GOP convention rolls around. Or, as hacks do, will you simply post about how their speeches show them to be tools of Satan while your side is as pure as the driven snow?
Any way all of this is unimportant compared to the worrying performance by the Brewers’ bullpen last night.