Point of order

Any self-presumingly authoritative criticism that opens with a grammatical error,

You can agree with everything that Rachel Maddow or Ed Schultz say on MSNBC and still oppose their right to say it ...

... I instantly view as a trifle suspect.

I'm also beginning to wonder about Harvard. The author of the above, the NY Times' television critic, Alessandra Stanley, went there, and of course so did Mitt Romney, who said last night, "if you ask Ann and I what we'd give" for something or other. Yes, I often ask iself, or meself, such questions, too. For instance is there a difference between "and" and "or," as well as between the nominative case and the objective? Methink there is.

Comments

[Turgidson]

Eh, more "it's not polite to call a lie what it is, especially if it's a liberal calling a conservative a liar" commentary. Cry me a river. The line has to exit somewhere and the fact that it took Paul Ryan's speech for some (not enough, but some) media types to decide it's been crossed (when Mitt's been pumping them out for months now and the GOP's been winning based on a healthy dose of lies since Nixon) is a big reason why our democracy is in such a tattered state at present.

Chris Matthews isn't reflexively or blindly liberal, and he has a long, storied history of lionizing GOP figures who catch his fancy. I mean, he just did it the other night when he was smiten with Condi's altogether not that amazing speech.

So, while it's easy and fair to dismiss Ed Schultz as a blowhard, and question Maddow's conclusions based on how proudly she wears her ideology as a badge, when Matthews finally can't take it anymore and starts saying these "shrill" things that make the "both sides do it" crowd hit the fainting couches, it's a little harder for the tut-tutters to dismiss it as just a liberal hit job. Though his lame "thrill up my leg" comment of 4 years ago made that case easier for them.

In my view, I grow tired of Maddow's too-cool-for-school delivery, but she takes adherence to the facts much more seriously than her supposed mirror images on the right. She's not perfect and her leanings color her conclusions, but she at least tries to provide factual background for her claims. So I hate the false equivalence between her and say, O'Reilly or whoever. They're both biased, sure. Only one deliberately lies as a matter of policy.

Schultz I can do without. I like where his heart is, but he drives me crazy.

[M.C. M.]

"Point of order" received with thanks!