The main person claiming that the hearings are boring is Jonathan Allen from NBC. This guy is simply an egotistical blowhard who made his name by trashing the candidate who got three million more votes than the current president, constantly repeating ideas that we now know were put forward by Russia ("her e-mails!" "Clinton Foundation is corrupt!"). I turn off MSNBC every time they let him bloviate. His lack of critical thinking ability is so obvious! Yesterday when I got the email from NBC saying the hearings "lack pizzazz" I opened the article wondering "who could have written this?" and laughed out loud when I saw his byline.
I hear you. I think the bigger problem is people like Jeff Mason at Reuters. He wrote "Consequential but dull." Mason is the former president of the White House Correspondents Association. His influence surpasses Allen's by far.
My immediate thought is that the job of correspondents is to sift through the boring detail and report the highlights -- it's why we pay them the big bucks. /s
I wouldn't do well as an historian with the final report:
"Uh, yeah, the archives were boring, too much paper in there..."
Perhaps these folks are in the wrong line of work.
The main person claiming that the hearings are boring is Jonathan Allen from NBC. This guy is simply an egotistical blowhard who made his name by trashing the candidate who got three million more votes than the current president, constantly repeating ideas that we now know were put forward by Russia ("her e-mails!" "Clinton Foundation is corrupt!"). I turn off MSNBC every time they let him bloviate. His lack of critical thinking ability is so obvious! Yesterday when I got the email from NBC saying the hearings "lack pizzazz" I opened the article wondering "who could have written this?" and laughed out loud when I saw his byline.
I hear you. I think the bigger problem is people like Jeff Mason at Reuters. He wrote "Consequential but dull." Mason is the former president of the White House Correspondents Association. His influence surpasses Allen's by far.
My immediate thought is that the job of correspondents is to sift through the boring detail and report the highlights -- it's why we pay them the big bucks. /s
I wouldn't do well as an historian with the final report:
"Uh, yeah, the archives were boring, too much paper in there..."
Perhaps these folks are in the wrong line of work.
From MJ Rosenberg:
John,
I don't watch any of the Trump shows: not impeachment, not Muller, not any of it.
All that matters to me is how this all plays with the morons out there. I don't need convincing,
nor do I need ammunition as I don't know any Trump supporters.
I don't watch MSNBC either. Or Morning Joe. Or any of it.
Between WaPo, the Times, The Editorial Board and TPM, I'm fine thank you.
However, I will (as in 2016) go to a battleground state for the last 10 days of the campaign
in November. I can door knock for days. But don't ask me to give myself a stroke
by seeing Jim Jordan in his wrestling coach outfit.