CNN "INSIDE POLITICS" Transcript: Clueless Stu Rothenberg SLAMS Bloggers

CNN "Inside Politics" ^ | February 18, 2005

[PJ-Comix]

WOODRUFF: As we've seen in our coverage all this week, online blogs are receiving a lot of attention. And some say their influence is overstated.

With me now again, Howard Kurtz of CNN's "RELIABLE SOURCES," and political analyst Stu Rothenberg, of "Roll Call" and the "Rothenberg Political Report."

Stu, let me start with you. We just heard Howard's report giving us a look at who some of the bloggers are. But you're a long-time political observers, analyst. What do you make of the blogs?

STU ROTHENBERG, "ROTHENBERG POLITICAL REPORT": Well, I think blogging is simply another vehicle for people getting their opinions out. Everybody has opinions. For hundreds of years they've used different methods, whether it's soap boxes or pamphlets, talk radio.

Now blogs. They're opinions. And they're as good as or not as good as the particular opinion and the person who is offering it.

[PJ-Comix]

The ABSOLUTE Cluelessness of Stu Rothenberg concerning the Blogosphere is absolutely astounding. Hey Rothenberg! In the old days Dan Rather would have gotten away with his phony TANG story. It was the BLOGOSPHERE that made the facts known that his documents were FRAUDULENT.

I saw this segment and Howard Kurtz had a look of disgust mixed with pity on his face as Know-Nothing Rothenberg ranted on about Bloggers, a subject about which he is almost completely IGNORANT.

[Prost1]

What's even better is that Bloggers opinions are equally if not more valid than CNN et al.

Why, because CNN, MSNBC, CBS et al represent the "fringe group".

See election results!

[Darkwolf377]

I just read the transcript. What exactly did Rothenberg say that was so outrageous? The only thing I found that one might debate was the point about "editors". But that's not a really contentious point, is it? Bloggers don't have editors in the way newspapers do. The average person making an opinion does, either.

Does anuone see a story on ONE blog and buy it 100% or do we wait for major news sources or many other sources/blogs to pick it up before we believe it? Is a blog somehow pure just because it's a blog? That's like saying a newspaper is beyond criticism just because it's a newspaper.

As for the blogosphere nailing Rather, what did Rothenberg say that contradicts the fact that certain blogs worked in revealing the truth of that story? I didn't notice him mentioning that, though I kind of skimmed the transcript and may have missed it. (Even in that case, though, the blogosphere would have been the resting place of that story if the MSM didn't also report the blogs' findings, right?)

I don't see what he said that's so horribly increibly clueless.

[ScottFromSpokane]

Is there something outrageous in the part you didn't excerpt?

The problem with what's quoted here is that it's s obvious as to be boring.

[Prost1]

"What's even better is that Bloggers opinions are equally if not more valid than CNN et al."

Just trying to be "Fair and Balanced"

Really didn't mean it at all. MSM et all's opinions have been demonstrated to have "fringe" acceptance.

[Time is now]

"KURTZ (voice-over): When bloggers pummel people in the media, whether it's Dan Rather, or, for that matter, discredited White House reporter Jeff Gannon, critics say they resemble an angry lynch mob. "

Can someone explain how Jeff Gannon was "discredited"? Did he print lies (Jason Blair) broadcast lies (Dan Rather) or ask insipid questions?

[PJ-Comix]

Try this for starters. Rothenberg is comparing Bloggers with people who put posters up on walls:

ROTHENBERG: It isn't -- yes, but, Howie, look, if CNN -- if INSIDE POLITICS is going to do segments on bloggers, they ought to do segments on C-SPAN callers. They have opinions, too. And they may be digging research, and they may have news.

And you ought do segments on poster -- people who put up posters on building sites. They have opinions.

[Darkwolf377]

I don't see the problem with that. What exactly is wrong with that quote? And what does it have to do with the Dan Rather story?

[Normal4me]

Ya forgot Eason Jordan.

[PJ-Comix]

Another Rothenberg quote:

"But I'm concerned about this being the latest fad, just like talk radio or... "

Amazing! Rothenberg thinks talk radio is just the latest fad.

[Servant of the 9]

The Legacy Media has given it's death rattle, and the people it pays are beginning to panic.

So9

[cricket]

"I saw this segment and Howard Kurtz had a look of disgust mixed with pity on his face. . ."

. . .are you sure you were not misreading his 'face'?

Where did Kurtz weigh in on this. . .

[dk/coro]

Servant, IMO you summed up the debate cogently. In my view, the MSM ravens will have a most difficult time seeing their power erode before their eyes. And, coming to grips with that issue would be traumatic for any professional who had invested currency in a career.

the fact that the "career journalist" has -- at the same time -- lost enormous credibility in the eyes of his customer, makes for a very somber reassessment of one's future.

Kurtz made mention of the sustained subscription diminution in print and broadcast media. That, coupled with the career tag" -- comparing MS journalists to used car salesmen -- must have a devastating impact on these elitist pen pushers.

Well deserved, I say! Happy weekend, all.

[T.L.Sink]

I agree and to me it's a truism that opinions expressed
by bloggers will vary in quality, accuracy, etc. But isn't
that the case with every medium of communication? What
REALLY has the liberal mainstream media outraged is that
their monopoly is gone. Now they can be instantly fact-
checked, and their omissions as well as their biases can
be publicized. They'd still prefer the gone-forever world
of three networks broadcasting the same slanted news at
the same time with a captive audience. Now, with the Internet,
talk radio, more conservative publications available,
they find it VERY difficult to adjust to the new reality.

[Darkwolf377]

You're right on. I just don't see the points made about bloggers as being all that ridiculous in the context of the interview.

The invaluable contribution of bloggers, to me, is that they act as watchdogs of the MSM. In second place is their value as a news source, as most bloggers don't have the ability to do significantly widespread reporting.

[Cold Heat]

I don't think it matters how the MSM see bloggers.

The MSM is the reason blogs, forums and opinion boards exist. They can trash, comment or try to degrade.

It only fuels the need for more.

The MSM is flailing at invisible bats. I wonder why they are so concerned:-)

[T.L.Sink]

I completely agree. Another thing about the bloggers is
that with the multitude that's out there, you are going
to have a number of real authorities and experts in
EVERY field. That's exactly what happened with Rather's
forgeries. Some document experts thru their expertise
and professional knowledge -- EXPOSED THEM. Back in the
days that the mainstream media wishes were still here --
we all would have been fooled and CBS could possibly
have given the election to Kerry! But what the mainstreamers hate is that the old days and the old
monopoly are gone.