I’m never surprised when the national MSM media falls back on cliches and platitudes but it still bugs the living shit out of me. At a time when research has been made easier by the interwebs, they prefer spewing out the received knowledge of the conventional wisdom rather than doing any actual reporting.
The political punditocracy are usually the laziest media cats, but some of the “reporting” out of Baltimore and the Supreme Court beat has been lazier than Oscar and Della on a hot August afternoon.
I turned on MSNBC a few hours ago and they had two of the players from The Wire on as talking heads: the guy who played Bodie and the chick who played Snoop. I know that they’re actual Baltimoreans (as opposed to the Baltimorons who run the Orioles) but having the folks from The Wire on the news blurs the line between fact and fiction a bit too much for my taste. And I say that as someone who was into the show before it became a trendy hipster fetish object. However realistic some of it is, it’s a bloody teevee show and watching it doesn’t make one an expert on West Baltimore or the BPD. Here’s what some dude on Twitter had to say:
It’s a momentous week at the United States Supreme Court as the Justices took up the Obergefell vs. Hodges case, which will, more likely than not, result in legalizing same sex marriage from sea to shining sea. The MSM remains obsessed with characterizing Justice Kennedy as the “one to watch” or the “swing vote.” Kennedy is that BUT ON OTHER CASES, you maroons. His historical legacy is clear: he’s the gay rights judge. You know, he’s the author of all the groundbreaking gay rights cases of the last decade. There are obviously 5 votes for some method of legalizing marriage equality, the question is not IF but HOW. The MSM prefers the manufactured drama of “what will the swing judge do” to counting votes. They’re a lot like Congressional teabaggers in that regard: they can’t count votes either.
The other aspect of the MSM Supreme Court coverage that drives me batty is the incessant tealeaf reading as to what the Justices comments mean or what their body language means during oral arguments. Time for more self quotation:
Oral arguments at the Supreme Court used to be much less flamboyant in the pre-Scalia era. There were many very distinguished Justices who rarely spoke during them. Why? Because the briefs and negotiations over opinions are what really matter. The former is undramatic and the latter is conducted in private, which is why the MSM is disinterested in both. If it doesn’t bleed, it don’t lead or some such shit.
Btw, I don’t use the acronym SCOTUS because it looks too much like scrotum. And while that may work for Scalito and Thomas, I prefer to show the other Justices more respect than that. Not that that ever stopped me from calling Felix Frankfurter, the Hot Dog Man…
After those groaners, I’ll attempt to restore a measure of decorum to the proceedings by giving 10cc the last word: