pricks - Gawker

posts about #pricks more →
Dylan Ratigan Is a Colossal Prick
Sad Donald Rumsfeld is Not Crazy, Just Misunderstood
Does The Internet 'Hurt Journalism?'
How To Keep Employees Happy, By Tucker Max

Your version of Internet Explorer is not supported. Please upgrade to the most recent version in order to view comments.

Dsmvwl Admin Promote to frontpage Approve user Ban user ×

TRexstasy
10/05/09

In reply to Dylan Ratigan Is a Colossal Prick
I thought Mr. McKinnon was handled with all the respect and courtesy due to a writer from "The Daily Beast".
Reply

TRexstasy was starred TRexstasy was unstarred

phlox✔
10/05/09

In reply to Dylan Ratigan Is a Colossal Prick
Yes! We need more left-leaning pricks; both metaphorical and literal.
Reply

Edited by phlox✔ at 10/05/09 1:28 PM phlox✔ was starred phlox✔ was unstarred

Anthony De Rosa
10/05/09

In reply to Dylan Ratigan Is a Colossal Prick
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.
Reply

Anthony De Rosa was starred Anthony De Rosa was unstarred

RandomLunatic
10/05/09

In reply to Dylan Ratigan Is a Colossal Prick
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%.
Reply

RandomLunatic was starred RandomLunatic was unstarred

John Cook
10/05/09

@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?
Reply

John Cook was starred John Cook was unstarred

unclevanya
10/05/09

@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.
Reply

unclevanya was starred unclevanya was unstarred

afraidofauntieem
10/05/09

@John Cook: why does he invite blathering political pundits who dole out PR-style talking points by rote on his show?

Because that's the only people who will go on the cable shoutfests these days?
Reply

John Cook promoted this comment afraidofauntieem was starred afraidofauntieem was unstarred

Uncle_Billy_Slumming
10/05/09

@John Cook:

Maybe they're positioning Ratigan as "the one we can trust."? Could have been just a little theatre.
Reply

skt.smth
10/05/09

@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.
Reply

skt.smth was starred skt.smth was unstarred

Elektra
10/05/09

In reply to Dylan Ratigan Is a Colossal Prick
Is it a banning offense to point out how remarkably tin-eared some of the Gawker editors are these days?
Reply

Elektra was starred Elektra was unstarred

John Cook
10/05/09

@Elektra: Who was banned?
Reply

John Cook was starred John Cook was unstarred

Matt Cherette
10/05/09

@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.
Reply

Matt Cherette was starred Matt Cherette was unstarred

robotwaste
10/05/09

@John Cook: "Is it" vs. "It is"
It seems to be a question, not a statement.
Reply

John Cook promoted this comment robotwaste was starred robotwaste was unstarred

Elektra
10/05/09

@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.
Reply

Elektra was starred Elektra was unstarred

John Cook
10/05/09

@Elektra: You actually can get banned for using "shan't." Consider this a warning.
Reply

John Cook was starred John Cook was unstarred

Elektra
10/05/09

@John Cook: OK, *that* was funny.
Reply

Elektra was starred Elektra was unstarred

robotwaste
10/05/09

@Elektra: Nice
Reply

Edited by robotwaste at 10/05/09 2:54 PM robotwaste was starred robotwaste was unstarred

Uncle_Billy_Slumming
10/05/09

@Elektra:

Ugh. You guys are going to have sex now, aren tyoo.
Reply

Elektra
10/05/09

@Uncle_Billy_Slumming: Well, I certainly am. [pause] Oh. [pause] You mean, together?
Reply

Elektra was starred Elektra was unstarred

Uncle_Billy_Slumming
10/05/09

@Elektra:

Yes, in the gigglical sense. (Patent Pending)
Reply

unclevanya
10/05/09

In reply to Dylan Ratigan Is a Colossal Prick
He was a schoolmarmy douche, but he got the job done. Better people than him know how to do that without seeming so pissanty.
Reply

unclevanya was starred unclevanya was unstarred

Tremonius
10/05/09

In reply to Dylan Ratigan Is a Colossal Prick
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?

Bumper sticker: "Who is John Cook?"
Reply

Voyou_Charmant promoted this comment Edited by Tremonius at 10/05/09 11:39 AM Tremonius was starred Tremonius was unstarred

Voyou_Charmant
10/05/09

@Tremonius: Exactly!

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.
Reply

Voyou_Charmant promoted this comment Voyou_Charmant was starred Voyou_Charmant was unstarred

Jupiter8
10/05/09

In reply to Dylan Ratigan Is a Colossal Prick
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.
Reply

unclevanya promoted this comment Jupiter8 was starred Jupiter8 was unstarred

unclevanya
10/05/09

@Jupiter8: Not Gawker. Cook.
Reply

unclevanya was starred unclevanya was unstarred

skt.smth
10/05/09

In reply to Dylan Ratigan Is a Colossal Prick
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?
Reply

Edited by skt.smth at 10/05/09 11:16 AM skt.smth was starred skt.smth was unstarred

mamacrass
10/05/09

@skt.smth: Have you seen Cook's other "opinion" pieces? Like this gem [gawker.com]

He's a dick.
Reply

Voyou_Charmant promoted this comment mamacrass was starred mamacrass was unstarred

Czechette
10/05/09

@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.
Reply

skt.smth approved this comment Czechette was starred Czechette was unstarred

VeronicaDemonassa
10/05/09

In reply to Dylan Ratigan Is a Colossal Prick
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...
Reply

skt.smth approved this comment VeronicaDemonassa was starred

John Cook
10/05/09

@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.
Reply

Edited by John Cook at 10/05/09 11:28 AM John Cook was starred John Cook was unstarred

flossy
06/22/09

In reply to Sad Donald Rumsfeld is Not Crazy, Just Misunderstood
Oh, Rummy, Rummy, Rummy. They're not eager to shake your hand, they're trying to stink-palm you. And may your hands forever smell like ass, you miserable creep.
Reply

flossy was starred flossy was unstarred

Dickdogfood
06/22/09

In reply to Sad Donald Rumsfeld is Not Crazy, Just Misunderstood
Oh yes, they sure as fucking hell do say Colin and Condi lied, you incorrigible narcissist.
Reply

Dickdogfood was starred Dickdogfood was unstarred

MrInBetween
06/22/09

In reply to Sad Donald Rumsfeld is Not Crazy, Just Misunderstood
The three-ring binders of love are Rummy's Rosebud. Did he draw little pink hearts on the covers, like a 50s high school girl?

Of course, if Rummy had meticulously collected all the hate-mail, hate-e-mail, etc. he had received while Defense Secretary, he'd need an Indiana Jones-final scene-sized warehouse to store it all.
Reply

MrInBetween was starred MrInBetween was unstarred

gawkimo
04/10/09

In reply to Does The Internet 'Hurt Journalism?'
I'm conflicted on this issue. After all, this website ids a perfect example of how the "blogosphere" depends on people being paid real money to do journalism.

Information may "yearn to be free" but like everything else: you get what you pay for.

Governments, third world despots, corporations and criminals would enjoy seeing journalism be destroyed and replaced with blogging.

There's a big difference between having a foreign correspondent cover African affairs and having Xeni Jardin tell you what she did on her African vacation.
Reply

gawkimo was starred gawkimo was unstarred

sample032
04/10/09

In reply to Does The Internet 'Hurt Journalism?'
One part I hate is the bias it's introduced. It very clearly exists and Gawker, but there's a better example: reddit. Those people vote for stories they wish were true without clicking through to sources to make sure they are. This shouldn't be a big deal, but a few times per week, a followup to a story shows up, but it doesn't even get as many votes as the original.

Reddit has made me believe that whatever news you want to read is out there, given sufficient editing.
Reply

sample032 was starred sample032 was unstarred

Maura Johnston
04/10/09

@sample032: digg, too.
Reply

Maura Johnston was starred Maura Johnston was unstarred

Earlier discussions Other discussions Show all discussions Show featured discussions only Start a new discussion