HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Which is it? Was today's ...

Mon Jun 10, 2019, 07:38 PM

Which is it? Was today's hearing a big nothingburger as some promised or SO important that MSNBC's

and CNN's decision not to run it live was irresponsible and suspect?

OR was the hearing important but two cable news channels not showing it live really doesn't matter in the scheme of things?

32 replies, 1951 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 32 replies Author Time Post
Reply Which is it? Was today's hearing a big nothingburger as some promised or SO important that MSNBC's (Original post)
StarfishSaver Jun 2019 OP
Xipe Totec Jun 2019 #1
Irishxs Jun 2019 #4
onecaliberal Jun 2019 #2
emmaverybo Jun 2019 #9
Turin_C3PO Jun 2019 #3
The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2019 #5
cwydro Jun 2019 #19
mucifer Jun 2019 #6
Irishxs Jun 2019 #7
emmaverybo Jun 2019 #8
StarfishSaver Jun 2019 #10
emmaverybo Jun 2019 #21
stuffmatters Jun 2019 #13
emmaverybo Jun 2019 #22
Baitball Blogger Jun 2019 #14
hlthe2b Jun 2019 #11
EffieBlack Jun 2019 #12
emmaverybo Jun 2019 #25
Kurt V. Jun 2019 #15
DeminPennswoods Jun 2019 #16
Kaleva Jun 2019 #17
panader0 Jun 2019 #18
blue neen Jun 2019 #23
StarfishSaver Jun 2019 #26
emmaverybo Jun 2019 #24
cwydro Jun 2019 #20
Thomas Hurt Jun 2019 #27
StarfishSaver Jun 2019 #28
lordsummerisle Jun 2019 #29
GeorgeGist Jun 2019 #30
StarfishSaver Jun 2019 #31
Fiendish Thingy Jun 2019 #32

Response to StarfishSaver (Original post)

Mon Jun 10, 2019, 07:42 PM

1. I'll let you know after I watch TRMS. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Xipe Totec (Reply #1)

Mon Jun 10, 2019, 07:54 PM

4. Agree. What RM says matters to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Original post)

Mon Jun 10, 2019, 07:47 PM

2. VERY IRRESPONSIBLE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onecaliberal (Reply #2)

Mon Jun 10, 2019, 08:03 PM

9. +1000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Original post)

Mon Jun 10, 2019, 07:53 PM

3. I think the media likes stories like the helicopter crash.

Thatís why the hearings werenít really covered by cable news. Itís not a conspiracy or anything like that, itís just business and ratings, IMO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Original post)

Mon Jun 10, 2019, 07:55 PM

5. Neither. I would have preferred that they showed it, but

there was a helicopter crash in NYC and more people are interested in air accidents (especially when they crash into buildings in NYC) than in Congressional hearings. CNN and MSNBC follow the principle that if it bleeds it leads because that attracts eyeballs and pays for advertising. That's just the way it is. However, it wasn't irresponsible because the people who were interested would have watched it live on C-SPAN or some other streaming service or will catch it later somewhere on the Internet. I'm sure Rachel Maddow will cover it thoroughly. I think what's at least as important is that Dean's testimony might have educated some of the dim bulbs in the GOP House who are too young (and/or stupid) to remember how Watergate got started and how it finally went down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #5)

Mon Jun 10, 2019, 08:46 PM

19. Yes.

Bad day for that crash (not that thereís a good day for a crash).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Original post)

Mon Jun 10, 2019, 07:56 PM

6. newspapers did a crappy job of covering it too except for WaPo

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Original post)

Mon Jun 10, 2019, 07:59 PM

7. I listened to contempt hearing on c span.

GOP hated suing for contempt but I think it passed the committee and now needs whole house vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Original post)

Mon Jun 10, 2019, 08:01 PM

8. Important. Very. The Republicans as usual filibustered and used Trump's obstruction, firing of top-

tier counterintelligence officials, as proof that the investigation needed investigating. They went off
on the dossier, Hilary, FISA warrants, and said the biggest threat to Americans was not Trumpís
obstruction and collusion, but spying cause if we tolerate spying on this president, every American is at risk.
So Republicans definitely tried to turn the hearing into a nothing by refusing to participate in any of
the actual issues at hand.
They did not succeed.
Ms. McQuade and Ms. Vance were so well prepared, sharp, and composed in their presentation that they made Repubs sound hysterical.
John Dean appeared unfazed by Jordan and co. personal attacks. Cable news lets Trump pollute the airwaves with inanity, self-absorbed histrionics, and hateful insults. They should have broadcast
this most educational and crucial event.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to emmaverybo (Reply #8)

Mon Jun 10, 2019, 08:03 PM

10. Great recap

Do you think the fact that they didn't show the hearing live today will make any difference in the long run?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #10)

Mon Jun 10, 2019, 08:48 PM

21. I am hoping that its significance and obvious public interest sinks in enough to persuade

media to get on board.
I do think what happened today would have more legs if it had been broadcast to a wider audience, but hope the specifics Vance and McQuade in particular picked up on from the report will continue to be sounded. They set passages in relief in the context of crimes, pulling together ďthe
footnotesĒ with the main sections. Their succinct rendition reminded me of how a really good law professor can make accessible and memorable dense and complex points of law.
Shirley Jackson put it all in an articulate nutshell today on MSNBC.
I donít think their commentary is going to get buried, They delivered a guidebook to the report I donít think, given the grilling heíd have to field and the nitpicking, that Mueller himself could give, and their voices felt objective. Well, they are law professors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to emmaverybo (Reply #8)

Mon Jun 10, 2019, 08:21 PM

13. Throughout my impression too. Repugs tantrumed & bullshitted.Dems actually quoted/illuminated Report

And that Heritage/Federalist Soc/Koch product("expert" was predictably a professional haughty, obnoxious, RW shill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stuffmatters (Reply #13)

Mon Jun 10, 2019, 08:50 PM

22. Illuminated, great description for what they did. Lifted to the light. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to emmaverybo (Reply #8)

Mon Jun 10, 2019, 08:22 PM

14. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Original post)

Mon Jun 10, 2019, 08:07 PM

11. well, NBC nightly news didn't cover it. I don't know if the other two did, but I doubt it.

Which means only those who read major national newspapers like WAPO, NYT, LATIMES, etc. are likely to know about it, except for those who watch MSNBC or CNN.

Still, it is a start and if we get Mueller and McGahn in there, I suspect there will be some retrospective coverage of this hearing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Original post)

Mon Jun 10, 2019, 08:11 PM

12. The hearing was important

but itís no big deal that cable news didnít show it live. Probably everyone who wanted to see it and had access to a television or computer could watch it (it was live on CNBC and PBS) and online. I doubt there was anyone who wanted to see it was stopped from doing so because it wasnít on MSNBC or CNN.

The carping and moaning about two cable channels not going live to a hearing theyíre spending most of the evening covering and discussing is more the result of people being frustrated and wanting something to yell about than any actual problem arising from the timing of the coverage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EffieBlack (Reply #12)

Mon Jun 10, 2019, 09:15 PM

25. Ah, good. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Original post)

Mon Jun 10, 2019, 08:23 PM

15. I'm not able to watch it but my trusted sources tell me two things:

this (relatively) new brand of republican is scary af. Minority rule is very real when an elected official will obfuscate with no conscience. also, this isn't an episode of a tv show. dems need to bring their constitutional right of an impeachment inquiry to the fore. even if it means nadler defying the speaker.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Original post)

Mon Jun 10, 2019, 08:32 PM

16. Hearing was worth covering and so was the helicopter

crash. But, the crash was not worth 2+ hours of repetitious, no new news coverage since the cable news networks knew pretty quickly it wasn't anything more than an unfortunate accident of a chopper trying to make an emergency landing. They could have showed the hearing and monitored the situation in NYC breaking in if necessary.

Notice that MSNBC dumped the crash coverage as soon as Nicolle Wallace's show came on and there has been no mention of it yet on any of their prime time shows.

OTOH, this is what the cable news channels do, coverage of some tradgedy with no new news to report for hours on end and nothing but the same video played in an endless loop. YMMV, but it's highly annoying to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Original post)

Mon Jun 10, 2019, 08:34 PM

17. Haven't watched cable news in years so it didn't matter to me that it wasn't aired...

by MSNBC and CNN. But that's just me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Original post)

Mon Jun 10, 2019, 08:44 PM

18. I view the hearing as a preview of coming events.

Nadler hasn't got the guys he wants there yet, but this gets the ball rolling.
John Dean, in particular, adds a special flavor, a historical perspective and
he's very sharp and well spoken. The R's looked like asses (which they are).
The hearing was available on line, the way most people younger than me
view things these days.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to panader0 (Reply #18)

Mon Jun 10, 2019, 08:51 PM

23. Oh, the R's did, indeed, look like asses.

They had nothing of substance to say, just trying to discredit John Dean. They did not succeed at that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blue neen (Reply #23)

Mon Jun 10, 2019, 09:17 PM

26. They certainly looked foolish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to panader0 (Reply #18)

Mon Jun 10, 2019, 08:55 PM

24. Good points. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Original post)

Mon Jun 10, 2019, 08:47 PM

20. Doesn't really matter.

This administration is getting away with whatever it wants.

With impunity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Original post)

Mon Jun 10, 2019, 09:19 PM

27. I did not get to watch it, but it sounds like it was expert testimony only?

If so all it does is lay out some history and set the scene.

Don't know if they are approaching this like Trump is the frog in the cooking pot or what.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thomas Hurt (Reply #27)

Mon Jun 10, 2019, 09:22 PM

28. Yes. But in this instance, expert testimony that lays a foundation and framework is critical

People often say the Democrats need to lay out a narrative. But a narrative needs context and this was an important part of providing that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Original post)

Mon Jun 10, 2019, 09:50 PM

29. As a few posters above have noted

I also rely on Rachel to distill news like this to tell me what's important to take away from it...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Original post)

Mon Jun 10, 2019, 10:25 PM

30. Only Two choices?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GeorgeGist (Reply #30)

Mon Jun 10, 2019, 10:26 PM

31. There are three choices

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Original post)

Mon Jun 10, 2019, 10:55 PM

32. If it was the first hearing of an impeachment inquiry, they'd have aired it gavel to gavel nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread