The Hackery Of Michael Barone
Tweet
I hate Michael Barone because he dresses up conservative pro-Republican spin as nonpartisan analysis. He was one of the people doubting the polls in the last few weeks of the election, simply because they showed Obama in the lead he eventually would have. Now Barone has decided that Republicans are coming back in Virginia because a Republican lost a local election on a cold February day where a piddling 108,000 people showed up.
This is like me saying that next week’s game for the Redskins looks good because the Steelers won the Super Bowl on Sunday. In other words, not much sense.
37 Responses to “The Hackery Of Michael Barone”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
I hate Michael Barone because he dresses up conservative pro-Republican spin as nonpartisan analysis.
“I hate Michael Barone…”
Gee, and here I got the impression that it was the God-fearing, gun-toting, racist, xenophobic woodticks in Alabama, Mississippi, West Virginia and Kentucky who were the only haters in America. So even liberal bloggers in the most highly educated states in the country can be haters too.
It’s a bit of a bewildering contention you make to claim that a guy that would write a column like The Coming Obama Thugocracy in the National Review and Townhall.com is trying to disguise his political leanings, and that you actually hate him for that.
Last week when you wrote ‘My friend reminded me that ThinkProgress deals with actual, verifiable facts.” and I’m assuming you include Media Matters in that same boat. I’m supposed to be convinced that those sites, while admittedly partisan, nevertheless only deal in actual, verifiable facts. And that it’s immaterial that the people gathering and blogging about those ‘facts’ hate their subjects.
Michael Barone is respected on both sides of the aisle. Just one of the many reasons for that is that he doesn’t ‘hate’ the people he is writing about.
“Michael Barone is respected on both sides of the aisle.”
No, he’s not.
“No, he’s not.”–Jaim
Yes, Jaim, he is.
Why else would he be hated here then???
“I hate Michael Barone because he dresses up conservative pro-Republican spin as nonpartisan analysis.” The logic wouldn’t quite follow otherwise, now would it?
If you’re saying that lipstick on a pig is still a pig, and that no one is buying that pig, then there’d be no rational reason to hate that unsuccessful pig salesman. There be no reason to call that pig salesman a hack, or spending even more than two seconds inconsideration of his sales methodology; actual, verifiable facts be damned.
The dude is obviously a Republican. No harm in that, just let him work for FOX News instead of this charade of him being “bipartisan.” Nobody believes him. Kind of like the way nobody believes you.
Dennis, like most conservatives, you can’t engage in the content of the post but instead narcissitically focus on your hurt feelings because Oliver offended you. Grow up.
Michael Barone’s a delusional hack. Your offense at having this pointed out to you is simply an artifact of the fact hthat you’re a thin-skinned hypersensitive right-wing whiner.
Michael’s election night ranting on Faux News is horrid
Dennis: I’m supposed to be convinced that those sites, while admittedly partisan, nevertheless only deal in actual, verifiable facts.
Yes, it’s quite possible to hate someone and attack them with facts. The hate may provide the motivation for attacking someone, but that doesn’t mean the thing you attack with can’t be facts.
It’s quite telling that you can’t grasp this.
Dennis, like most conservatives, you can’t engage in the content of the post but instead narcissitically focus on your hurt feelings because Oliver offended you. Grow up.–Tyro
Honestly, Tyro, my feelings aren’t hurt, I just don’t think he’s a hack, and I don’t get the hatred comment from someone who writes often about conservative hatred. There really wasn’t much more content to comment about. But if you insist, and I don’t want to hurt anyone else’s feelings, but Barone made a contention and provided ample supporting documentation for anyone to interpret for themselves their own conclusions. I don’t think that’s hackery, especially given the links he provided. But taking one number out of what he gave, a weak turnout number, and scoffing that it was weak solely due to weather, then saying it makes no sense, akin to a completely nonsensical sports analogy, is.
But I don’t hate him for it.
It’s quite telling that you can’t grasp this. Sean D. Martin
Well, then tell me what it tells you about me. I don’t hate many people, none even that come readily to mind. To take the time go gather facts about someone you hate so that you can attack them seems like a monumental waste of one’s life. I just can’t understand how that could be satisfying.
That’s what I can’t grasp.
Umm, Dennis, it’s called a “figure of speech.”
Like when I say, “I hate these dumbass drivers who won’t use a fucking turn signal,” I don’t mean i literally hate THEM as people. It means I hate their dumbass refusal to use turn signals.
Similarly, when one says “I hate this writer or that writer,” it doesn’t mean, “I hope this guy gets cancer,” it means, “I hate this guy’s writing.”
See the difference?
If you’re saying that lipstick on a pig is still a pig, and that no one is buying that pig, then there’d be no rational reason to hate that unsuccessful pig salesman. There be no reason to call that pig salesman a hack, or spending even more than two seconds inconsideration of his sales methodology; actual, verifiable facts be damned.
What the hell are you talking about?
“Like when I say, “I hate these dumbass drivers who won’t use a fucking turn signal,” I don’t mean i literally hate THEM as people. It means I hate their dumbass refusal to use turn signals.” –Bruce Henry
Hear ya on that one, Bruce. On second thought, I guess I do hate some people. Especially the one’s who do that with a cell phone in their f’ing ear.
The short moral of that last comment: “Don’t look over here, look over there.”
Nice way to obfuscate, in order to ignore the point of the original post.
Gee, and here I got the impression that it was the God-fearing, gun-toting, racist, xenophobic woodticks in Alabama, Mississippi, West Virginia and Kentucky who were the only haters in America. So even liberal bloggers in the most highly educated states in the country can be haters too.
You catch that kids?
ingrained racism = taking issue with a particular person’s politics.
Your modern Republican party: Undisputed masters of the false equivalency.
Also for the record, there’s a lot of hatred in portions of the Pacific Northwest. People really, really hate Obama and people who look like him. But other places too.
ingrained racism = taking issue with a particular person’s politics. –Mister ed
No, ed, seriously, hatred is hatred. Not as much with figures of speech, if that’s what it was. But you hate me because I think differently than you and you don’t agree with my political viewpoints. I’m not saying it’s as bad as the harm the idiot racist might inflict, but it’s still hatred, and it’s still wrong in my book. You don’t just ‘take issue with a particular person’s politics’, you get abusive, obsessive and vulgar with that person. All the while putting up the front that you care about everybody. The reality is, it’s just the people who think like you that you care about.
Mine wasn’t a false equivalency.
I just don’t think he’s a hack
Then explain why instead of throwing a temper tantrum about the fact that Oliver called him out on his hackery.
Your problem is this: you love to dish it out and disrupt, but when someone offends your delicate, precious sensibilities, you barf up all over the threads in a fit of incoherence. it’s an affliction that affects many of your ideological travelers. You think Michael Barone is great? It’s just more evidence of your poor judgment– learn to suck it up and reply coherently when someone points out that Barone is a hack rather than throwing a fit. You seem to take it personally that people don’t respect mindless shilling for Republican talking points, perhaps because so many of your friends and family think you’re a none-to-bright-hack for repeating them. But no one cares about your personal problems. Don’t bring them here.
Oliver thinks your idols are full of crap? Then explain why he’s wrong. Don’t pitch a fit over it you immature little crybaby.
Tyro-
A hissy fit temper tantrum to call accuse someone else of same. Very bold of you, Ty-ty.
I made one post, and everything since has been a response to an objection of mine or a defense of the accuser. I thought I had explained why I think he’s not a hack, and why I didn’t think this last article was hackery. I’m not sure how many more ways you need to have it said, but the burden of proof should be on his being a hack, not on proving he is not, especially when that accusation has been posted in all caps and all bold, with the first sentence saying that you hate that person, figure of speech or not.
I didn’t know there was a history of a grudge here. Maybe that explains some of it.
Grudges are not good.
you get abusive, obsessive and vulgar with that person.
Snarky, tongure-in-cheek, potty-mouth blog comments = Bull Connor and fire hoses (and worse)
Yup, exactly equivalent. Glad we got that cleared up.
Now Barone has decided that Republicans are coming back in Virginia because a Republican lost a local election on a cold February day where a piddling 108,000 people showed up.
Wuf! I hope they had lots of porta potties.
Bull Connor and fire hoses (and worse,– Mister ed
Don’t ask me about Democrats from the 50′s, Mister ed. I can’t even figure out the ones from the present day.
Goddess knows I’m tryin’, though.
I didn’t know there was a history of a grudge here.
Grudge? That was more like a childish obsession. Eight posts in a row that all boil down to “Oliver’z fat, huhuhuhuh!”
Too bad Goldstein has to get a real job now, huh?
Not to toot my own horn but an intellectual fight with Goldstein is sort of lowering myself from the majors to fantasy baseball. Goldstein apparently cited Barone writing about me? I was not aware of it until now, though considering Goldstein’s track record that was probably made up too.
As far as Barone goes, he is a hack of the worst order. I have a special disdain for people who are partisans but pretend to be down the line. Barone is a conservative who doesn’t play one on TV and on occasion he ends up twisting reality to tout the con line. For instance:
Barone made something up about objective reality in order to further the con agenda while pretending to be a straight reporter – for Fox in this instance.
Oliver-
A ‘special disdain for’ sounds a bit better than ‘I hate’, but ‘a hack of the worst order’ from ‘the hackery of Michael Barone’ puts you right back in good stead with the fans here, so, ‘Well done’ I say.
Media Matters proof of Barone’s ‘hackery’ in this instance consists of the following:
1. A Media Matters review of the speech, and
2. A Fox News transcript of the speech which prints the word [applause] after a few sentences where Kerry spoke about his calls for military strength, something no convention speech is ever missing.
Did Media Matters provide the audio or video? No. Did Media Matters contact Barone to ask him to explain why he wrote about that observation? Again, no.
To me, that is hackery. Yours and Media Matter’s opinion as liberals and Kerry supporters at the Democratic Convention about how rousing of applause compared to other applauses is very likely to differ from someone like Barone reporting (who was there, by the way), just like I might have a different opinion than someone else at a football game on whether a politician showing up before the game received loud boos or loud cheers. He said ‘silence’, he didn’t say ‘stone cold silence’. Admittedly probably not accurate, but not an indictment of being a hack for a guy that has covered politics and conventions for a lot longer than I would guess anyone at Media Matters has.
From Wiki: Barone graduated from Cranbrook Schools in 1962. He received a bachelor’s degree from Harvard University in 1966 and a law degree from Yale Law School in 1969. He is a native of suburban Detroit, Michigan. Although his political viewpoint is center-right today, in the 1960s he worked as an intern for Jerome Cavanagh, the Democratic mayor of Detroit.[2] He was also a supporter of George McGovern in 1972. [3]
Here is a list of books he has written, or co-authored; his latest with Richard E. Cohen, someone I would term liberal, but you may disagree.
Here’s Eric Bohelert’s entry on Wikipedia. And Here’s Jamison Froser’s.
It’s interesting going back and reading those two entries from MM back in 2004 and contrasting to today. If anyone wants to now make the case as Barone, Hume, Kondracke and the Fox crew all agreed on, that what was motivating Democrats then was hatred for Bush and not military strength, then I’d have to say:
‘Bring it on.’
“in the 1960s he worked as an intern for Jerome Cavanagh, the Democratic mayor of Detroit.[2] He was also a supporter of George McGovern in 1972. [3]”
And Ronald Reagan was formerly a registered Democrat. David Horowitz used to be a radical leftist, by his own admission.
Michael Barone is simply not an objective, neutral reporter by any stretch of the imagination. On top of that, he just plain bad at his job.
Michael Barone is simply not an objective, neutral reporter by any stretch of the imagination. On top of that, he just plain bad at his job.–Jaim
He doesn’t claim to be neutral. It’s you who accuses him of pretending to be that, without supporting evidence. You also don’t provide evidence of his being bad at his job. Furthermore, you provided no support yesterday to back up your claim that he isn’t respected by people on both sides of the aisle, even after I provided evidence that he is.
That is your style. That is hackery. That is what you do, and what you’ve been called out on many times by me and others here, and yet you continue doing it.
You’re nothing more than a shiver looking for a spine to run up, Jaim.
Are you Mrs. Barone by any chance, Dennis?
Are you Mrs. Barone by any chance, Dennis?–Jaim
That’s your response to being proven to be nothing more than a drive-by gnat looking for attention???
I’m not even a fan, Jaim. It’s no effort at all, really, countering blows that are thrown as if in a drunken stupor.
You on the other hand, take to heart and defend everything Oliver writes; even more so when he doesn’t. If I were him, I’d thank you for your sincere effort, but I’d ask you kindly to beg off for a bit.
Don’t ask me about Democrats from the 50’s, Mister ed. I can’t even figure out the ones from the present day.
You mean like Strom Thurmand and Jesse Helms? What ever happened to those guys anyway?
Both dead and completely irrelevant to anything happening in the current day, Mister ed.
A striking parallel in a sense to whatever point it is you seem to be trying to get across.
Did Media Matters provide the audio or video? No.
Actually we did, but the video didn’t survive the transition to the newer format of the site. How do I know? I put the damn video together myself. Barone said there was silence, yet there wasn’t. You don’t have to be a veteran of any political conventions to make that determination. Barone simply made it up and you see nothing wrong with defending that, as he postures as an objective reporter.
In the interest of settling this, the video is here.
From day one, I’ve made my sympathies clear. I’m a partisan Democrat. What I write here is my opinion, though I often back it up with research, audio, and video. Unlike Barone I don’t pretend to be an objective observer. I have a take.
Michael’s Poor Almanac
Oliver-
I can’t open the video here right now, but will later on my home computer, but my point is, he was there. That’s one of the reasons why the call on the field in a football game stands in a review unless there is incontrovertible evidence that overrules it. It’s simply a better vantage point in real time. He could’ve been standing in the crowd and thought that whatever applause there was was muted, or a pause and a bewildered look on people’s faces before they did clap. Lots of different factors could’ve affected why he said what he did, but the fact of the matter remains that Kerry’s statements about defense were baffling to people on both sides of the aisle considering that the main knock on Bush and Republicans was the mess they created in Iraq and our standing in the world. And it WAS Bush hatred more than anything else then that was motivating them, and likely that perception that was playing out is what affected his observation of the crowd reaction.
From your site:
BARONE: When I first started going to these Democratic conventions, they were sort of all about love — the love of different Democrats for different presidential candidates, and the winning candidate would try to win the love of people that had been for the losing candidates. This convention body is really more about hate — hatred of [President] George W. Bush. That’s what is motivating these people. They haven’t been in love with John Kerry throughout the primary period.
I think that is an accurate observation. There wasn’t a great amount of love for John Kerry then as much as an abundance of hatred for George Bush. That was different this last election.
So really, your indictment of him is his use of the word ‘silent’ to describe the crowd reaction, when he probably could’ve used a more accurate word or phrase, because everything else he said fits. MM doesn’t give him that benefit of his explanation. They put you to work getting the video and trying to get it to load on the site correctly, but no one sends an email to Barone to get his say on it, or a better description. If you can get him on his use of the word ‘silent’, and show that it wasn’t complete ‘silence’ then you’ve got a story, and you can call him a hack. Then that somehow undercuts his credibility and undercuts his larger narrative, which happened to be accurate,
Well, sorry, but I think that’s a bit underhanded.
Dennis, I’ve never seen a man-crush of this magnitude. I approve heartily. You and Michael Barone shall walk hand-in-hand into the great Republican future. You deserve each other, truly.
I never really thought about him much, truth be known, Jaim. Never read any of his books, don’t follow his writing other than when I catch an article on NRO that he’s penned there.
But maybe you have a point; maybe I should start an ACLU for the defense of wronged conservatives. Don’t have a law degree, but what the hey, you don’t need one to level baseless charges either. My guess is he could defend himself a whole lot better than I ever could, if one would just ask him.
Jeez, you will defend everything. Your response boils down to “email the right wing liar so you get his spin on what we all saw on our tv screens”. Come on.
Also: ever heard of instant replay? Sometimes the home viewer has a better pov than the zebras.
Also: ever heard of instant replay? Sometimes the home viewer has a better pov than the zebras.
Have I heard of it? I just brought it up, and I thought I addressed that. Yeah, sometimes the home viewer does have a better POV, but unless it’s incontrovertible, the zebra’s call on the field stands. That’s why the have to make a call, and can’t just say, hey, looks look at the replay and see what happened.
How many times have you been talking about a big game in any sport and someone says, ‘Dude, I was there, and the crowd was ‘_____’ (pick your adjective). Do you ever react to him, “I don’t need your stinking first-hand viewpoint of the crowd reaction, I was watching it on TV. You want to know what that crowd was really like, watch the video, Chump”?
My guess is, if Barone had put the ‘almost’ qualifier in front of the ‘silence’ word, you would still have a story, but not much of a case. But like I said, it’s really kind of nitpicking when MM didn’t seem to make many bones about the larger narrative. Did the crowd enjoy the digs on GWB more, or Kerry’s weak attempts at looking like a strong leader of our defense?
Oliver-
Went back and watched that video. Not conclusive. There was applause, not thunderous applause, people look confused and not all that sure they should be going wild, and what ensued could not be described as thunderous. Compare and contrast the reaction then to the reactions of Obama’s convention speech.
Barone had written much the same thing that very day on Edwards’ speech the night before, that delegates weren’t sure whether they should cheer or not, so he was looking for how Kerry’s comments on defense would be received. Near silence, almost silence, less than enthusiastic applause, muted applause… all probably more accurate. But to make a huge deal out of something so dubious such that you have written about it no less than three times on your blog in the past year, fully four years later, is a bit much and somewhat grudge-like, don’t you think?
Sorry, but the call on the field stands. The video was not conclusive enough to change Barone’s call, and you’ll be charged with your first time-out.