Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
That makes sense if you think that Taibbi objects to anyone having a point of view. But if Taibbi sees a problem with the media propensity to stir shit to get people agitated and watching, then Maher looks more like part of the problem.
"A twisted wing of the entertainment business?" Isn't that Maher's middle name?
You like Maher because you agree with him.
|
On your last point, I like Maher because the number of his positions I agree with far outweighs the number of those with which I disagree. But I could no more generally agree with him on everything than I could any other person.
But to the extent he is occasionally a cheap provocateur (slurs, wishing Koch brother was in hell, etc.), I’m not a fan. But it is very easy to separate the instances in which he pot stirs from those where he is making interesting points you’ll rarely hear elsewhere.
ETA: But I agree with your assessment that Taibbi would label Maher a part of “Hate, Inc.”. Taibbi himself could be part of it, as he is a firebrand of sorts. But neither Maher nor Taibbi are amassing audiences aligned with doctrinaire party-line political positions like Hannity or Maddow. And neither is actively lying or spinning. If by pot stirring occasionally, Maher and Taibbi can cause people to stop watching Fox or MSNBC, they’ve done us all a great service. If they can drag people away from the parties, if they cause people not to trust the parties, to question rather than follow, is that not doing what the Fourth Estate was designed to do?
