Sorry John, but i'm with Dylan on this one. O'Reilly does the same thing, and while I lean left, I appreciate when O'Reilly does it to guests that just want to push their own agendas.
John, you might want to check out a lot more Ratigan than this. While I actually believe he may be a real butthole in person - guys like him often are - he has an awesome knack for putting blathering political pundits off their feed and calling them on their massive reams of bullshit. He's one of my favorite MSNBC hosts and these days I'm usually allergic to cable news hosts in general. Ratigan refuses to accept PR-style talking points doled out by rote, and that's actually something I figure Gawker usually can get behind 100%.
@RandomLunatic: Maybe, but why does he invite blathering political pundits who dole out PR-style talking points by rote on his show? So he can self-righteously dress them down on live television? Seems like a better way to combat cable news idiocy would be to have a show where non-idiots speak intelligently, rather than one where idiots get yelled at for being idiots. Also, I guess describing someone who opposes the EFCA as favoring "corporate communism and total control of the American people" constitutes incisive, smart political analysis as opposed to, say, a talking point?
@John Cook: I see it as a a two-pronged approach. Invite non-idiots, yes, but the idiots and liars are going on the other networks and not being challenged, so the poor viewers watch and go "hmm, McKinnon (or Betsy McCaughey) has a point there!" The liars and shills have to be exposed too.
I think Dylan's only crime here is trying to host The Daily Show without checking first to see if he became Jon Stewart overnight.
@John Cook: From the looks of it, he didn't invite this guy on. Ratigan was being combative even before he began his rant. By telling the guy to disregard his political history, he was obviously attempting to stave off a baldly partisan response, and when the guy then commenced his baldly partisan response, Ratigan pounced. My guess is that the producer lined this shmuck up and Ratigan wasn't particularly thrilled about it.
@John Cook: I believe he/she was calling you (and other editors, apparently) "remarkably tin-eared" under the guise of a question about the appropriateness of doing so.
@robotwaste: It was indeed a question. That's why it began with "Is it" and ended with a question mark. Perhaps it was a loaded question, but it was still a question. To which the answer is apparently "not yet." I shan't press my luck with queries about the editors' reading abilities.
I have been waiting forever for someone, anyone, to cut down these shills at the source. It is obsecene the way they will fire up their mob of morons and then come into the studio and try and mislabel what is happening. In place of clamoring cretins, you have some suit glossing over racism with Big Government or Budget Deficit or any other Pox Noise talking point none of the rubes on the lot could even comprehend. Lawrence O'Donnel does this prompting well, and Dylan Ratigan shows his mettle here, as does the Repugnant author of this hit piece, and how many of them work at Gawker?
I say it's just fine that Dylan Ratigan didn't let him start in on talking points, he asked him a specific question and he started sniping at policy and proposed legislation.
Good for Ratigan-this guy is just a GOP hack trying to blurt out his talking points. I guess Gawker is stunned by actual TV journalism (asking a question, wanting an answer to that question) which is rare these days.
Looks pretty legit to me. It seems like Ratigan asks a pretty straightforward question, and McKinnon is trying to inject some bullshit think-tank anti-union soundbite under the guise of expert criticism. This is exactly how the media should treat "strategists" and think-tankers. Good on Ratigan, by the way, for revealing the political history of his guest. Most of the time, when these "experts" are brought on to opine about this or that, the hosts never even take the time to point out who the person is (usually they belong to political consulting firms that actually make money by spinning the debate on various issues). Why the hate, Cook?
@skt.smth: I agree. Ratigan was doing his job. Keeping the conversation focused on the topic at hand is essential. Otherwise it becomes just free air time for guests pushing a political agenda to promote their (unrelated) views on whatever they want.
I don't really like that guy, but I'm glad to see someone finally call out one of these guests for this. It's frustrating as a viewer a lot of the time to see these professional talk show guests completely ignore questions then just talk about what they wanted to. Sometimes I actually want to hear the answer to a question, even if the host is a douche...
@VeronicaDemonassa: The reason there is such a thing as a "professional talk show guest" is that people like Dylan Ratigan ask people like McKinnon to come on their talk shows.
10/05/09
10/05/09
10/05/09
10/05/09
10/05/09
10/05/09
I think Dylan's only crime here is trying to host The Daily Show without checking first to see if he became Jon Stewart overnight.
10/05/09
Because that's the only people who will go on the cable shoutfests these days?
10/05/09
Maybe they're positioning Ratigan as "the one we can trust."? Could have been just a little theatre.
10/05/09
10/05/09
10/05/09
10/05/09
10/05/09
It seems to be a question, not a statement.
10/05/09
10/05/09
10/05/09
10/05/09
10/05/09
Ugh. You guys are going to have sex now, aren tyoo.
10/05/09
10/05/09
Yes, in the gigglical sense. (Patent Pending)
10/05/09
10/05/09
Bumper sticker: "Who is John Cook?"
10/05/09
I say it's just fine that Dylan Ratigan didn't let him start in on talking points, he asked him a specific question and he started sniping at policy and proposed legislation.
10/05/09
10/05/09
10/05/09
10/05/09
He's a dick.
10/05/09
10/05/09
10/05/09
09/24/09
09/24/09
09/24/09
09/24/09
09/24/09