When it comes to news lately, it’s hard to tell the real from the fake
Bookworm on Oct 26 2009 at 3:30 pm | Filed under: Media matters
It’s no wonder CNN felt compelled to take the SNL “Obama does nothing” skit seriously. Wolf Blitzer, who deconstructed all the “lies” in the comedy sketch, inadvertently created a little comedy sketch of his own, when he made an utterly pathetic showing on Jeopardy:
There are no defenses adequate to explain that performance from a public figure — one who doesn’t t even have what would have been my excuse, which is stage fright.
I’d now like you, please, to compare Blitzer’s very real failure with Tom Hanks’ amusing turn as an idiot on SNL’s spoof version of the same show:
Between the one and the other, there’s a very narrow little ditch of difference. If Blitzer ever runs across the SNL sketch, I’m sure he’ll feel compelled to explain why it’s a spoof and how Hanks’ rather brilliant performance differs from Blitzer’s own explainable befuddlement.
Related posts:
- Sometimes, the remake is better than the original
- Picking on easy targets again
- GOP: Real solutions for a real recovery
Email This Post To A Friend
14 Responses to “When it comes to news lately, it’s hard to tell the real from the fake”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blitzer’s a religious fanatic. They’re not noted for intellectual variety, diversity, or even particularly nimbleness.
Shame on you Book for criticizing fanatics.
Blitzer’s a religious fanatic.
??
I assumed Y meant the religion of liberalism.
I watch very little of Blitzer, but I remember a good measure of his intelligence and experience during the Kuwait war. He was narrating video from the US air attack, specifically video of a jet fighter roaring down the runway with afterburners blazing into the night, and sagely explained to the audience that the plane was coming in for a landing.
There are many religious sects of the Left. I cannot pinpoint the exact branch that Blitzer likes, but his preferences are open to public view, certainly.
Sorry. Someone email me the decoder ring, would you please?
Are you under the mistaken impression that religion has to do only with God?
Not so, you know. And you don’t need a decoder ring to figure that out.
Are you under the mistaken impression that what you said was intuitively obvious?
I am not under the impression that I need to answer any more of your questions. Your original confusion has been answered. Belaboring the point by stating you need a decoder ring is… well, you tell me what it is.
You have been told what the story is. Unless you want to claim that you thought Blitz was known for his church going ways, what else do you feel entitled to, besides an explanation that he isn’t?
well, you tell me what it is.
Hopefully, a useful lesson. If your cup is sufficiently empty to receive it.
socratease
Good One! LOL
Hopefully, a useful lesson.
Vague and ambiguous. This is the best you can do? You receive a clear cut answer and you return an ambiguous response. The decoding is on you now. Good luck with it.
Here are the few lessons on this score.
If at all possible, clear and straight talk is preferred unless satire is involved or other less serious styles engaged.
If a person prefers a clearer rendition, he can make the request and it may or may not be answered. If answered, you are required to either accept it with public acknowledge that this is satisfactory or you make it known that this is an unsatisfactory answer. Sometimes the answer is not satisfactory, but the one that received the answer may feel it prudent to drop the subject.
I fulfilled the common requirements of courtesy when a request for clarification was made.
If your problem is with things being not ‘intuitively obvious’, Charlie, then why engage in obfuscation in your messages to me? Now, I want a clear answer, same as the one you were provided. Cut the BS and speak what you mean, and mean what you say. You are not asked to provide anything more that what you have already benefited from.
I am not satisfied with your obtuse joke questions or round about ‘answers’. I have said so plainly, yet you will not do me the common courtesy of answering my questions, except with your own fantastical questions.
Are you under the mistaken impression that religion has to do only with God?
I went to the effort of taking your question about a decoder ring seriously, as serious as it can be taken, at least. Your question implied that my answer was unsatisfactory, so I asked you to elaborate more on what you believe. So far you have not elaborated upon what you believe or what you find unsatisfactory with my answer.
So far I have had to take a whole lot of rude implications from you.
Have the initiative to speak up, Charlie. I see nothing here that prevents you from doing so. I have told you exactly what is what, as I saw it. Have the common decency to either return the favor or drop the subject. It’s on you. Go.
Ymartkar, you said “Bltzer’s a religious fanatic” and made further statements based on that. Since I’ve never seen blitzer say anything religious or heard anything of that sort in the past, I found this curious, and queried it in pretty much the most economical way possible. Said nothing about you, nothing about the idea, simply questioned it.
Why? Because I didn’t understand it.
Turns out that your point, such as it was, was that Blitzer is a “religious fanatic” in the liberal “religion.” Now, had you made that argument to start with, I wouldn’t have had to ask. But no, you simply expected that your audience would know this is (apparently) a high horse you ride about the comments on a regular basis; you apparently took offense that I hadn’t hung on your words enough to catch on.
Well, I hadn’t. Ergo, the desire for a decoder ring.
Now, I tried to be relatively subtle here, but since you ask, I’ll lay it out.
The reason I didn’t understand is because it was obscure.
The lesson you could take from it, if you were capable of self-examination, is that it is the responsibility of the writer to make their point clear.
It is not the responsibility of the reader to decode what you say, especially in a context like this where the passing reader may not have followed each and every eructation that emerged, ex cathedra, from your nether regions.
Sadly, in the course of a busy day, I don’t have the time to hang on every word from every semi-educated self-important twit on the Internet.
In what I’m sure with be an ego challenging blow, in your case I don’t even care to.
If you want to be understood, you probably will find it useful to show your work.